Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 63 (9161 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,585 Year: 2,842/9,624 Month: 687/1,588 Week: 93/229 Day: 4/61 Hour: 4/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Please - Some Impartial Advice Needed
Wounded King
Member
Posts: 4149
From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 117 of 240 (405860)
06-15-2007 10:33 AM
Reply to: Message 115 by Hyroglyphx
06-15-2007 9:59 AM


Re: The mysteries of life
I'm going to pulverize the obvious here... Without heterosexuals, there would be no homosexuals. 'Nuff said.
With modern reproductive science this is less true than it ever has been, and it never has been all that true unless you consider a heterosexual orientation to be a prerequisite for heterosexual sex.
so all you seem to be pulverising is the obvious strawman that seems to be constantly pulled out in so many discussions of homosexuality in an evolutionary context, that homosexual men can't have heterosexual sex for the purposes of reproduction.
TTFN,
WK

This message is a reply to:
 Message 115 by Hyroglyphx, posted 06-15-2007 9:59 AM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 121 by Hyroglyphx, posted 06-15-2007 11:24 AM Wounded King has replied

  
Wounded King
Member
Posts: 4149
From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 133 of 240 (405890)
06-15-2007 12:39 PM
Reply to: Message 121 by Hyroglyphx
06-15-2007 11:24 AM


Re: The mysteries of life
So why do offer naturalism as the blanket answer for everything, only to turn it around on itself when it comes to an agenda you support?
NJ, this isn't an evolution of homosexuality thread, there have been plenty of those and any number of those have provided several plausible evolutionary pathways which might maintain or even promote a level of homosexuality.
Are you really so completely loopy as to think that the promotion of methodological naturalism in science is the same as some sort of animal skin wearing back to nature approach to life? The opposite of the naturalism I espouse is not what you consider 'unnatural', but the supernatural.
the commonly held belief among evolutionists is that through trial and error, nature will find the most efficient way of doing things.
Not 'the most efficient', merely sufficiently efficient.
But my argument wasn't evolutionary in nature it was common sense. Just because someone is gay doesn't make them incapable of having children nor does it mean they may not wish to have children. Simply claiming that if everyone was gay there would be no children is plainly ludicrous. It is only obvious if you have a simplistic absolutist stereotype of what it means to be gay in your head.
TTFN,
WK

This message is a reply to:
 Message 121 by Hyroglyphx, posted 06-15-2007 11:24 AM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 140 by Hyroglyphx, posted 06-15-2007 1:08 PM Wounded King has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024