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