Homosexuality and Natural Selection.

What is with the strong arm tactics? Does being sensitive exclude me from discussing a topic on which I have something to say? Or do I have to say what you wish to hear?Edited by dameeva, : No reason given.

Your posts don't seem to suggest you want to actually discuss the topic at all. You seem to want to limit discussion of the topic on the grounds that you think discussing it at all is somehow demeaning to homosexuals.If your only contribution to a discussion is saying we shouldn't discuss it at all then can you see why Admin doesn't consider that a productive contribution. If you want to object to the topic ever having been promoted then that is a topic suitable to a thread about topic promotions or moderation, but not to this thread itself.When you say "There is no need for a scientific analysis of normal." You seem to be saying we should all be happy to settle for ignorance and no one should do science at all. We can't understand disease or dysfunctions of a system if we don't understand how it operates normally. So should we not have any medical science because it relies on a scientific analysis of 'normal'? And if we consider homosexuality to be encompassed in 'normal', as I do, then don't we need to understand that as well so that we don't label it as some sort of disorder or abberance, as has unfortunately been the case so often historically and still is in too many places. Your mistaking of mutation as some sort of perjorative term seems to be leading you to ascribe a whole lot of motives to people here that they just don't have.TTFN,WK

yes I do feel the whole subject is demeaning but I am honest in my enquiry. I am in no way putting anyone down or intending to cause any disruption. I am utterly confused as to why this line of enquiry is taking place.
No way do I believe it is intented to be demeaning and I see no evidence of malice and haven't made any such accusations. Surely you have a valid reason for this discussion and it is not just idle chatter on something so serious? Edited by dameeva, : No reason given.

I'm framing the question from an evolutionary standpoint. Slowly but surely, as Admin is pointing out, certain people are making emotive arguments when the title of the forum is "Homosexuality and Natural Selection."The question is why would nature select homosexuals at all.The usual answer I get back, when purely emotive responses aren't flung around, is that nature does not intend for anything because its all up to chance. But that is not entirely true.Evolutionists routinely assert that while chance certainly plays a role, natural selection cannot be categorized in capricious terms. Natural selection is supposed to be life's filter that weeds out undesirable traits, while dominant traits thrive."Chance certainly plays a large part in evolution, but this argument completely ignores the fundamental role of natural selection, and selection is the very opposite of chance. Chance, in the form of mutations, provides genetic variation, which is the raw material that natural selection has to work with. From there, natural selection sorts out certain variations. Those variations which give greater reproductive success to their possessors (and chance ensures that such beneficial mutations will be inevitable) are retained, and less successful variations are weeded out.

​

When the environment changes, or when organisms move to a different environment, different variations are selected, leading eventually to different species. Harmful mutations usually die out quickly, so they don't interfere with the process of beneficial mutations accumulating." -TalkOriginsSo my question is that if natural selection is the opposite of chance, then why did nature select homosexuality at all?My statement is that nature didn't select it, because in purely evolutionary terms, they are diametrically opposed. It seems to be psychological, rather than purely biological.But in the event that homosexuality is a natural phenomenon, clearly we can see that homosexuals are weaker in evolutionary terms, because the desire for progeny is removed.

---

​

"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

Except you haven't shown that the desire to reproduce has been removed, you've merely asserted it.

---

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

I think if you read my Message 176 again you'll see that the concern is about lack of civility. In previous threads on homosexuality some members took offense at some opinions and felt that this gave them license to become accusatory and abusive toward everyone, including moderators. Finding fault with their behavior usually resulted in charges of being a homophobe.We're not having a repeat of this, so I'm issuing a warning that discussion had better remain civil or I will close this thread. Anyone who believes that it is possible for a dispassionately stated opinion to be so offensive as to make ignoring the Forum Guidelines and moderators allowable should cease participation in this thread (or any thread, actually) now.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

quote:

---

clearly we can see that homosexuals are weaker in evolutionary terms, because the desire for progeny is removed.

---

Lets try this again...Evolutionists assert that sexual desire stems from their overall desire to procreate.Homosexuals desire to copulate with members of the same sex. They have no want or desire to be with members of the opposite sex.So, from a natural point-of-view, why is that?Just so you know, these sentiments do not necessarily mean that I am in agreement with them. I'm simply playing the devil's advocate by showing how the two theories (homosexuality and evolution) are irreconcilable without changing the fundamentals of both theories.Does that make a little more sense?

---

​

"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

It makes as much sense as it ever did, which means it is simplistic and facile.You give the impression that you simply haven't read, or at least not understood, any of the responding arguments. All you are doing is restating the same empty argument you have been making right from the start of this thread.TTFN,WK

I think if you read my post 162 you would find I am being civil but human too. This discussion is about human beings and therefore is open to different view points of humanity. If my views offend you then you will know how I feel.
It isn't what is being said as much as the insensitivity that is de-humanising the subject. Emotion cannot be excluded when the subject is human. Even when the form of de-humanising comes without judgement or blame, it has the same effect.
The only motive that has been offered for this line of enquiry was to prove to dangerous fundamentalists that homosexuality is normal. If this is the case I would ask, why aren't the dangerous fundamentalists being scrutinized and examined to discover if they were born that way and have no choice? What is 'wrong' with them?
The gay population are not responsible for others behaviour and are not a threat of any kind. Those who see them as such need their heads examined. However, I will probably defend them also if de-humanisation is present.
I truly cannot get my head around this subject matter and my queries are not coming from emotion (well maybe a little frustration at not understanding). Can anyone tell me the nature of this discussion?Edited by dameeva, : No reason given.

But this is not what it really is all about! It doesn't matter if homosexuality is a choice or not. I would hate to limit someone's rights just because he "chose" to be in a same-sex relationship.I see our conversations here about the genetics and whatnot of homosexuality as purely (1) entertainment, (2) educational, and (3) for its own sake.If we really want to base our legislations on whether something is a choice or not, where does it stop? Should people born with some sort of genetic mutation that makes them more prone to murder be allowed to get away with murder?I'm just saying that the argument that gay people should have the rights they deserve simply they were born that way is a bullshit argument. There are a lot more at stake here, mainly our rights to choose.

---

Disclaimer:

​

Occasionally, owing to the deficiency of the English language, I have used he/him/his meaning he or she/him or her/his or her in order to avoid awkwardness of style.

​

He, him, and his are not intended as exclusively masculine pronouns. They may refer to either sex or to both sexes!

And how does that remove the desire to reproduce? I have no want or desire to eat my mother's lasagna (she puts in way too much spinach) but I do it anyways cause I have a desire to please her. One desire can override another.

---

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

Nemesis, I feel like you live in the twightlight zone or something where words in our messages to you just disappear while on their way to your brain. The answers to your specific questions have been answered at least a dozen times in this thread alone. And yet, you keep repeating your same argument... is there a miniature blackhole between your computer monitor and your eyes?For starter, you can take a look at my message 136 in this thread. Allow me to quote myself. Past studies have shown, particularly in apes, that having a gay uncle does give a baby ape better chances of a safe childhood as well as a healthy upbringing.Even though noone has been able to find any single "gay gene" yet, just the mere fact that animal can be "cured" of their homosexuality via experimental procedures should be at least a small clue that it CAN be not a choice.

---

Disclaimer:

​

Occasionally, owing to the deficiency of the English language, I have used he/him/his meaning he or she/him or her/his or her in order to avoid awkwardness of style.

​

He, him, and his are not intended as exclusively masculine pronouns. They may refer to either sex or to both sexes!

You may be aware that there is or was some lack of knowledge concerning whether a person was 'born' gay, or chose to be gay.That question is not often asked in regards to religion, but we DO discuss such possibilities very often at EvC. I am a religious person and I do not get upset when religion is discussed objectively as a 'genetic predisposition'. I think we have even had threads about 'why' nature selected for a religious mentality in humans. That's what goes on at EvC.Since there is some emerging science which links homosexuality to a genetic or pre-birth physical tendency, the next question is to ask why or if that tendency would be selected for in nature.

I have a good friend who just moved in order to help take care of his sister and her kids. Anyway, just curious, but is it possible that NS just over-looks homosexuality? I mean, is sex drive the same thing as 'desire to reproduce'? If an organism has one, it may be presumed to have the other, but I don't think animals have any actual desire for parenting. They have sex drive, and they have parenting instincts. If there is no gay-specific gene, then selection will be clueless about how a person's sex drive will be utilised?

I would argue that trying to "prove" that homosexuality is normal would hurt not only your cause but also mine. Normalcy by what standard? If we are talking about comparason to the majority, homosexuality is far from normal... and neither is redheadedness. If we are talking about normalcy in the sense of nature versus nurture, this is exactly what we are debating. That's easy. The nature of this discussion is purely for entertainment, education, and its own sake.Dameeva, I noticed that you live in australia. I was swearing up and down, left and right, and in and out when I found out Australia passed a gay marriage ban a few years back. From what I read as well as my contacts in Australia, there were christian fundamentalists screaming hate speeches and christian children holding signs of condemnation of gays (we're talking about 5 year olds here so I doubt they actually knew what they were doing) before and after the law was passed right out in public in your capitol. Was all those commotions what prompted you to be so sensitive about our debate here?BTW, has that very christian-like law been overturned yet?

---

Disclaimer:

​

Occasionally, owing to the deficiency of the English language, I have used he/him/his meaning he or she/him or her/his or her in order to avoid awkwardness of style.

​

He, him, and his are not intended as exclusively masculine pronouns. They may refer to either sex or to both sexes!