Homosexuality and Natural Selection.

Ah, thank you for clarifying. Uhhhhh, well, I guess if you think so. I'm not sure what he said that you think is a "load of shit," but I should add that the quote has nothing to do with my post. Its an option available to all posters in the "Profile" menu.

---

​

"It is not the critic who counts, not the man who points out how the strong man stumbled, or where the doer of deeds could have done better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena; whose face is marred by the dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs and comes short again and again; who knows the great enthusiasms, the great devotions and spends himself in a worthy course; who at the best, knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who, at worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly; so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who know neither victory or defeat." -Theodore Roosevelt

CDarwin Well perhaps the better explanation for the prevalence of homosexuality is that the area of the brain that governs homosexuality expression is not selected against since there is no survival threat present by it being there. In the same way that heterosexuality has expressions that have nothing to do with reproduction yet are not selected against either.Of Course , you could tell them to piss off and quit being so heterophobic and learn to deal with you as you are despite their discriminating biases. It is a waste of time to try to expect people to understand you through a filter they have in place but ,more to the point, it is a waste of your time to try to change their perception.

But isn't there? Since the entire theory of evolution is based on sexual selection, what purpose would it serve nature to select a specie that does not have the desire to reproduce?Obviously the argument extends to survival, since virtually all theories concerning evolution revolve around reproduction.That begs the question: If nature, having no mind or will, does not intend for homosexuality, rather, that it simply happened, couldn't we reasonably view homosexuals to be inferior in evolutionary terms?In Darwin's estimation, life is only made clear in terms of winners and loser, living or dead. Where then does homosexuality fit in that? Discrimination doesn't factor in to the equation when we are speaking about nature. This is an argument from nature. There is no political correctness in nature. It simply is what it is. So for this once, lets not make emotive arguments and just answer the questions appropriately-- which is from the view of science-- nothing more, nothing less.

---

​

"It is not the critic who counts, not the man who points out how the strong man stumbled, or where the doer of deeds could have done better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena; whose face is marred by the dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs and comes short again and again; who knows the great enthusiasms, the great devotions and spends himself in a worthy course; who at the best, knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who, at worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly; so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who know neither victory or defeat." -Theodore Roosevelt

Who said homosexuals don't have the desire to reproduce? They have a sexual attraction to the same sex, that doesn't mean that they're incapable of reproducing or lack the desire.

---

Live every week like it's Shark Week!
Just a monkey in a long line of kings.
If "elitist" just means "not the dumbest motherfucker in the room", I'll be an elitist!
*not an actual doctor

Umm, well, okay...A woman and a woman are incapable of producing offspring. A man and a man are incapable of producing offspring. If they want to copulate with only members of the same sex, that would prevent the desire of reproduction.*sheesh* what kind of a doctor are you? I'm aware that they are physically capable of reproducing. The issue is with the socioevolutionist trying to come up with compelling reasons for why things are the way they are. Homosexuals seem to be the very antithesis to the theory of evolution, as it literally, serves no evolutionary purpose to be one.

---

​

"It is not the critic who counts, not the man who points out how the strong man stumbled, or where the doer of deeds could have done better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena; whose face is marred by the dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs and comes short again and again; who knows the great enthusiasms, the great devotions and spends himself in a worthy course; who at the best, knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who, at worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly; so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who know neither victory or defeat." -Theodore Roosevelt

And so they get a sperm donor. And so they get an egg donor and a rental uterus. False. Kuresu provide a rebuttal to this way back in Message 3Edited by DrJones*, : No reason given.Edited by DrJones*, : No reason given.

---

Live every week like it's Shark Week!
Just a monkey in a long line of kings.
If "elitist" just means "not the dumbest motherfucker in the room", I'll be an elitist!
*not an actual doctor

Do you just not know what 'sexual selection' means or just not know what the hell you're talking about?I know there are a lot of people on this board who are keen to emphasise the role of sexual selection in evolution but I very much doubt you would find even the most hardcore of them saying that it is what the 'entire theory of evolution' is based on.Its this sort of plainly wrong attempts at 'science' that make people think that you don't realy care a whit for arguing from science Nem. You've been making the same stupid assertions about what gya people can and can't do or want and don't want this entire thread and they have been rebutted ad nauseum.TTFN,WK

I'm still reading the posts and I still don't get why this line of enquiry? I just don't get it. Is it just a topic of conversation?

[/qs]I did spit the dummy a little and I apologise if I have offended anyone. I tend to get a bee in my bonnet when my children are concerned. A lioness protecting her cubs interests.[/qs]Funny. My mom once told me that the only thing that really changed for her after I came out was that she felt much more on the defensive when people made ignorant or hateful comments. That really blew me away. I am still in awe of that statement.

---

"You are metaphysicians. You can prove anything by metaphysics; and having done so, every metaphysician can prove every other metaphysician wrong--to his own satisfaction. You are anarchists in the realm of thought. And you are mad cosmos-makers. Each of you dwells in a cosmos of his own making, created out of his own fancies and desires. You do not know the real world in which you live, and your thinking has no place in the real world except in so far as it is phenomena of mental aberration." -The Iron Heel by Jack London

I guess I know how your mum feels. Anything bordering on de-humanizing my child drives me insane. I'm not too keen on labelling of any kind and I do feel this forum discussion is trying to categorize a group of people.
I see homosexuality as another form of hetrosexuality. A relationship between two people. I don't need to be examined to discover why I choose one relationship and not another. I am drawn to some and not to others. It's simple and normal.
Why is deemed un-natural for same sex relationships? I just don't get it.

The last time a homosexuality discussion spun out of control it became a huge mess. I will shut this thread down immediately at the next sign of incivility.EvC Forum will not play host to the sensibilities of the easily offended. If you do not like what is being said in this thread to the point where you cannot maintain civility then stop participating before you ruin it for everyone and force me to shut this thread down.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

quote:

---

A woman and a woman are incapable of producing offspring.

---

This is an argument from nature. Where do sperm clinics factor in? I addressed the weakness of the argument then.

---

​

"It is not the critic who counts, not the man who points out how the strong man stumbled, or where the doer of deeds could have done better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena; whose face is marred by the dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs and comes short again and again; who knows the great enthusiasms, the great devotions and spends himself in a worthy course; who at the best, knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who, at worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly; so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who know neither victory or defeat." -Theodore Roosevelt

WK, there is only ONE way for evolution to take place. There is only ONE reason why a specie proliferates. There is only ONE way a mutation could be fixed in a population-- that would be by sex, whether asexual or sexual. Therefore, I stand by my sentiment that sexual selection must, by necessity, be the single greatest factor in evolution. They have been attempted to be rebutted ad hoc. The weakness of the arguments I've heard are specious, at best. I still don't see how you could not see that homosexuality and evolution are incompatible, given to such evidence.

---

​

"It is not the critic who counts, not the man who points out how the strong man stumbled, or where the doer of deeds could have done better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena; whose face is marred by the dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs and comes short again and again; who knows the great enthusiasms, the great devotions and spends himself in a worthy course; who at the best, knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who, at worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly; so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who know neither victory or defeat." -Theodore Roosevelt

Ok, a gay man wants to have a child, therefore he has sex with a woman, baby produced. Or are you trying to say that if someone doesn't want to do something, they will never ever do it even to satisfy another desire?

---

Live every week like it's Shark Week!
Just a monkey in a long line of kings.
If "elitist" just means "not the dumbest motherfucker in the room", I'll be an elitist!
*not an actual doctor

Sex doesn't fix a mutation. Sex isn't any type of selection. You have quite clearly demonstrated that you have no idea what 'Sexual Selection' actually means. Your ability to write in coherent English appears to have collapsed. I agree that the weakness you claim to find in the arguments is specious. You have not made one single effort to actually rebut them however you just keep restating your narrow minded initial assumptions over and over again. Because there is no evidence, only your hollow assertions.TTFN,WK