Right wing conservatives are evil? Well, I have evidence that they are.

Humans can help humans in a general sense, but that is no refutation of the evidence. An individual without the capacity to "directly" reproduce has a greater biological drive to aid in the survival of their nieces and nephews, or an adopted child. Quite a distinct scenario from what your are attempting to generalize. No, it isn't. Again, your simple comebacks only work if you take a very simplistic view of things.In some species/situations, the total number of surviving offspring per generation in a social unit is higher when some members are homosexual than in comparable social units without homosexual members.As a word of advice, I suggest you actually read and take a moment to digest the posts you reply to - your replies are often off-base and simplistic in a way that suggests you haven't actually considered what you're responding to...

quote:

---

To other animals we are far beyond. We can reason. Homosexuality doesn't seem reasonable, it just doesn't make sense.

---

Did you use reason to decide what your sexual orientation is?

quote:

---

You may ALSO have a spiritual basis, you might not. Mentally, however, you are very much an animal.

---

That's what many people would like me to believe, unfortunately for them and yourself, I can reason, and type up this letter to you on this device called a computer, designed by humans.

quote:

---

But homosexuality occurs in much of nature, including in humans, so that makes it natural.

​

If your religion teaches that homosexuality is wrong, that's one thing, but to say it's unnatural just isn't true.

---

What is natural is sometimes thought of what is a normalcy, or of regular occurence. In this case it's rare.

quote:

---

Actually, reality is there regardless of what you think it is or want it to be.

​

The scientific method is the best way we know of to get as close as we can to the truth of reality about the natural world.

---

Seeking out truth through experience of the outside world is 1up on the scientific method. Existentialism, through what I do, that is my reality. And this is why everything that I do matters, contrary to other animal's robot like functions.

---

Social Darwinism enjoyed widespread popularity in some European circles, particularly among ruling elites during the late 19th and early 20th centuries. During this period the global recession of the 1870s encouraged a view of the world which saw societies or nations in competition with one another for survival in a hostile world. This attitude encouraged increasing militarization and the division of the world into colonial spheres of influence. The interpretation of social Darwinism of the time emphasized competition between species and races rather than cooperation.

I used reason to come to the conclusion that homosexuality is nonsense, almost fully based on immediate gratification, or false inklings of what one thinks love is.

---

Social Darwinism enjoyed widespread popularity in some European circles, particularly among ruling elites during the late 19th and early 20th centuries. During this period the global recession of the 1870s encouraged a view of the world which saw societies or nations in competition with one another for survival in a hostile world. This attitude encouraged increasing militarization and the division of the world into colonial spheres of influence. The interpretation of social Darwinism of the time emphasized competition between species and races rather than cooperation.

quote:

---

Humans can help humans in a general sense, but that is no refutation of the evidence. An individual without the capacity to "directly" reproduce has a greater biological drive to aid in the survival of their nieces and nephews, or an adopted child. Quite a distinct scenario from what your are attempting to generalize.

---

But wouldn't you agree that the evidence applies to humans as a whole, and singling male and male, female and female pairs would produce the same results?

quote:

---

No, it isn't. Again, your simple comebacks only work if you take a very simplistic view of things.

---

Sorry for the simple comebacks, but the masses are here to take me on.

quote:

---

In some species/situations, the total number of surviving offspring per generation in a social unit is higher when some members are homosexual than in comparable social units without homosexual members.

---

That doesn't make sense, more male and female pairs would greatly increase the population, a lot more effective than male and male, female and female. I am arguing that male and female pairs are more effective than male and male, female and female. Not generations with homosexuals are "better" than generations without.

quote:

---

As a word of advice, I suggest you actually read and take a moment to digest the posts you reply to - your replies are often off-base and simplistic in a way that suggests you haven't actually considered what you're responding to...

---

Ty fly guy.

---

Social Darwinism enjoyed widespread popularity in some European circles, particularly among ruling elites during the late 19th and early 20th centuries. During this period the global recession of the 1870s encouraged a view of the world which saw societies or nations in competition with one another for survival in a hostile world. This attitude encouraged increasing militarization and the division of the world into colonial spheres of influence. The interpretation of social Darwinism of the time emphasized competition between species and races rather than cooperation.

Even such things as shitting, eating, sleeping, breathing, etc.?Is your shit divinely separate from that of all other animals?Does it smell like roses?Face it, you are part of nature. Simply the fact that you eat and shit makes you part of nature and the animal kingdom.

Yet, to some animals we are far behind. We can't change sex. (Snails can.) So sex with someone of your own gender is not OK, is it? Has is not occurred to you that some people have sex because it feels good? How about sex with yourself? Don't tell me you never masturbate. O, but wait, that would of course be "pointless, or unproductive and without reason, or logic."Be honest, if not with us, then with yourself, and ask yourself, the next time you masturbate: "Why am I doing this?" The answer should tell you something not only about yourself, but about every other human being. Including homosexuals.

---

We are all atheists about most of the gods that humanity has ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further. - Richard Dawkins

So rather reply incorrectly than not reply? Are you actually interested in a genuine discussion here?It is better to take time and write decent, well-thought out posts in reply to posts you have taken time to digest and ponder. The very reason "the masses are here to take you on" is because you are writing crappy posts that are easily countered, and deserve to be. But that isn't reality, and it appears you should go back and read my explanation again. But here's an example to try to help explain:Ten potential male-female mating pairs exist in a small social group. In one group, all pair heterosexually, mate, and produce three progeny, for a total of thirty children. In a second group, because of some homosexual pairing, only seven matings occur, producing twenty-one progeny.At this point it would seem the purely heterosexual group has produced more children, but let's examine how many children actually survive to adulthood.In "group heterosexual" there are 1.5 children per adult caregiver, and a total of fifty mouths to feed.In "group part-homosexual" there is 1 child per adult caregiver, and a total of forty mouths to feed.Due to predation on the group (reduced by small child/adult ratio) and competition for scarce resources (compensated for by fewer mouths to feed), half of the children in "group heterosexual" die before adulthood, while only one child dies in "group part homosexual".So, the final tally:
"group heterosexual" - 15 children
"group part homosexual" - 20 childrenWhich group was more successful? Did homosexuality serve a biological purpose? In paired isolation, obviously male-female pairs would produce more kids than same-sex pairs. However, in some social species it appears that homosexual group members increase the number of surviving children for the group.If you aren't interested in looking at holistic effects on social groups across generations, you're not interested in looking at reality, and thus stuck in your hole of simplicity. Thanks for the intelligent response.

prophex writes me:

quote:

---

I think that you mixed up what I said.

---

Then why are you only spouting meaningless drivel? If you want someone to understand what you're saying, try saying something that makes sense.

quote:

---

I think homosexuality when actually thought about is complete nonsense

---

Then you don't do a very good job of thinking because you presuppose that you know everything. Or do you just not understand the difference in an argument and a person?

quote:

---

...is really a hinderance to one's true goals in life, and purpose.

---

How do you know what any particular homosexual's true goals in life are, or what their purpose is? Have you asked any of them? Or do you just assume that you already know everything, like most other intellectually challenged right-wing fundies do?

quote:

---

What do they get out of this action on attraction?

---

Perhaps you could ask a homosexual that question rather than arrogantly assuming that you already know the answer.

quote:

---

When compared to a relationship that is male and female, it seems pointless.

---

So, two gay men who have been together for, say, 20 years or more have a pointless relationship, while the relationship between a whore and a john, so long as it's male-female, has meaning?You really don't think very much, do you?

---

Keep America Safe AND Free!

Prophex, open your eyes and look at the natural world. You will find plenty of examples of animals (within aves, mammalia and hymenoptera, for example) which forgo reproduction. Their genes appear to reproduce themselves rather successfully.mick

prophex writes me:

quote:

---

quote:

---

That is highly insulting. You are speaking of things you know nothing about. Most homosexuals are interested in far more than immediate gratification.

---

​

Like what?

---

Like the same things that heterosexuals are interested in. Do you honestly not understand this or are you just pretending to be dumb?

quote:

---

Don't be offended, rather give me an example.

---

I'll decide when I'm offended, k? You need an attitude adjustment. All I've seen from you thus far is arrogant bullshit. You have no idea what you're talking about, yet you think you know everything there is to know about homosexuality and all homosexuals. Have you ever spoken to a homosexual and asked any of these questions? Or do you really think you already know everything?

---

Keep America Safe AND Free!

quote:

---

Face it, you are part of nature. Simply the fact that you eat and shit makes you part of nature and the animal kingdom.

---

And ignore the bigger entities that seperate me from the other animals? In me taking part of Christianity alone hugely seperates me on a spiritual level.

---

Social Darwinism enjoyed widespread popularity in some European circles, particularly among ruling elites during the late 19th and early 20th centuries. During this period the global recession of the 1870s encouraged a view of the world which saw societies or nations in competition with one another for survival in a hostile world. This attitude encouraged increasing militarization and the division of the world into colonial spheres of influence. The interpretation of social Darwinism of the time emphasized competition between species and races rather than cooperation.

quote:

---

Perhaps you could ask a homosexual that question rather than arrogantly assuming that you already know the answer.

---

I was asking you. You seem to instead of reply, and develop a response go straight to the insults... I hate to complain but please treat me with some level of respect.

quote:

---

Then why are you only spouting meaningless drivel? If you want someone to understand what you're saying, try saying something that makes sense.

---

That's sasquatch's line, sheesh you're not even original. (Referring to "drivel", saw pink write it in another topic, found myself laughing.)

quote:

---

How do you know what any particular homosexual's true goals in life are, or what their purpose is? Have you asked any of them? Or do you just assume that you already know everything, like most other intellectually challenged right-wing fundies do?

---

Please don't classify me with your mundane systems.If being in a homosexual relationship has provided anything other than immediate gratification or a false feeling of true love then, it may not be a hinderence. It remains a hinderence.

---

Social Darwinism enjoyed widespread popularity in some European circles, particularly among ruling elites during the late 19th and early 20th centuries. During this period the global recession of the 1870s encouraged a view of the world which saw societies or nations in competition with one another for survival in a hostile world. This attitude encouraged increasing militarization and the division of the world into colonial spheres of influence. The interpretation of social Darwinism of the time emphasized competition between species and races rather than cooperation.

Let's try to wander back towards it.

---

quote:

---

I'll decide when I'm offended, k? You need an attitude adjustment. All I've seen from you thus far is arrogant bullshit. You have no idea what you're talking about, yet you think you know everything there is to know about homosexuality and all homosexuals. Have you ever spoken to a homosexual and asked any of these questions? Or do you really think you already know everything?

---

Please, don't get hostile. Check the reply above.

---

Social Darwinism enjoyed widespread popularity in some European circles, particularly among ruling elites during the late 19th and early 20th centuries. During this period the global recession of the 1870s encouraged a view of the world which saw societies or nations in competition with one another for survival in a hostile world. This attitude encouraged increasing militarization and the division of the world into colonial spheres of influence. The interpretation of social Darwinism of the time emphasized competition between species and races rather than cooperation.