|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 63 (9161 total) |
| |
popoi | |
Total: 915,585 Year: 2,842/9,624 Month: 687/1,588 Week: 93/229 Day: 4/61 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Please - Some Impartial Advice Needed | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Hyroglyphx Inactive Member |
quote: 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. That you are such an ardent supporter of the ToE, which could be extended further to unguided naturalism in its purest form, coupled with the fact that you support, in essence, test tube babies or homosexuals defying their "natural" sexual proclivitites, reeks of the unnatural. 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?
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. Natural selection is usually the ad hoc explanation for anything that appears teleological for an evolutionist. If it seems to have some sort of purpose or order to it, the commonly held belief among evolutionists is that through trial and error, nature will find the most efficient way of doing things. What you have just described is the most inefficient, unnatural way of doing things. Can you explain why you are going against the grain? Tell me what percentage of the population has been born of one parent who was a heterosexual, and the other a homosexual, for me to even entertain the notion. You say that me pointing out the obvious, that heterosexuality produces offspring, while homosexuality does not, is somehow a strawman, yet, you offer the world's largest scarecrow in your retort. If homosexuality was selected by nature, then for what? What advantageous quality would it be to give a creature the desire to copulate with members of its own sex, but still allow for it to go against its own nature to produce offspring? "I marvel that where the ambitious dreams of myself and of Alexander and of Caesar should have vanished into thin air, a Judean peasant”- Jesus ”-should be able to stretch his hands across the centuries, and control the destinies of men and nations." -Napoleon Bonaparte
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Hyroglyphx Inactive Member |
Nator asked this earlier, but was ignored. How is homosexuality just like bestiality? I've never said that homosexuality is just like beastiality. I could say, however, that both are instances of sexual immorality, but, if you are a non-believer, saying that will be largely ineffectual. I could say that both are aberrant. But first I would need to know what your beliefs are concerning nature. "I marvel that where the ambitious dreams of myself and of Alexander and of Caesar should have vanished into thin air, a Judean peasant”- Jesus ”-should be able to stretch his hands across the centuries, and control the destinies of men and nations." -Napoleon Bonaparte
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
molbiogirl Member (Idle past 2632 days) Posts: 1909 From: MO Joined: |
If homosexuality was selected by nature, then for what? Not if, darling. When.
For 10 years Bagemihl scoured the scientific literature, unearthing documented cases of same-sex encounters with apparent sexual significance. He also contacted scores of researchers to add details not included in published papers. The result is a species-by-species profile of more than 470 species. Link And this in not an exhaustive list. It's mostly mammals and birds.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 384 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
I could say, however, that both are instances of sexual immorality, but, if you are a non-believer, saying that will be largely ineffectual. As a Christian believer I also find your assertion ineffectual and ridiculous.
I could say that both are aberrant. But first I would need to know what your beliefs are concerning nature. You can say most anything you want. Aslan is not a Tame Lion
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
molbiogirl Member (Idle past 2632 days) Posts: 1909 From: MO Joined: |
ab·er·rant 1. Deviating from the proper or expected course. 2. Deviating from what is normal; untrue to type. Researchers have long known that same-sex erotic contact is common among apes. But de Waal's bonobo research as well as that recently presented by other authors suggest a more provocative conclusion: that homosexuality is consonant with the survival of the species. "Humans have created the myth that sexuality can be justified only by reproduction, which by definition limits it to hetero sex," says Michael Bronski, author of The Pleasure Principle: Culture, Backlash, and the Struggle for Gay Freedom. "But here is an animal society that uses homosexuality to improve its social life." Bonobos, in fact, who live in the equatorial rain forests of Zaire, have a sex life that would exhaust even the randiest humans, engaging in sexual activity, on average, every 1 1/2 hours, day and night. Females rub their genitalia together in a ritual graphically described as "GG-rubbing"; adolescent males swing from trees to practice what de Waal calls "penis fencing" and "rump-rump rubbing." Masturbation, French-kissing, and oral sex, all generally thought to be the province of humans, are the norm. Link The norm, darling. The norm.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Hyroglyphx Inactive Member |
quote: Not if, darling. When. That doesn't answer the question.
For 10 years Bagemihl scoured the scientific literature, unearthing documented cases of same-sex encounters with apparent sexual significance. He also contacted scores of researchers to add details not included in published papers. The result is a species-by-species profile of more than 470 species. I'm not in the habit of reading bare links. Not only is it a bad idea while using government computers, but its also frowned upon at EvC because deferring one's position soley to "expert testimony," is a weak argument. Actually, its not even an argument. But I know what the gist is and I'd like to address that. You are essentially saying that homosexual unions have been seen in nature, and therefore, it must be natural. Well, I have seen dogs that hump other male dogs. This might be fascinating if it weren't for the fact that I've also seen them humping a pair of shoes. Likewise, I had three male cats. When one of the cats, (incidently, the only one of them who still had a pair of testicles), would attempt to copulate with other male cats. Consequently, that was his only option. Kind of like looking at the sexual sociology of inmates, who, if they weren't incarcerated, refer to themselves as heterosexuals. So, does that prove that the cat was a homosexual, or does it prove that he was sexual? Lastly, in all of this research, what kind of comparisons or parallels can be drawn from animal sexuality and human sexuality? I only ask because the same people that get upset at drawing parallels between beastiality and homosexuality are often the same people that have no qualms drawing parallels between animal sexuality and human sexuality. "I marvel that where the ambitious dreams of myself and of Alexander and of Caesar should have vanished into thin air, a Judean peasant”- Jesus ”-should be able to stretch his hands across the centuries, and control the destinies of men and nations." -Napoleon Bonaparte
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taz Member (Idle past 3282 days) Posts: 5069 From: Zerus Joined: |
nj writes:
Hahahahaha Its one thing to accept homosexuality. Its another thing altogether to renounce heterosexuality in the process. I'm going to pulverize the obvious here... Without heterosexuals, there would be no homosexuals. 'Nuff said.
So, it's not enough that you don't want gay people to be happy? Now you want to take my right to take the cure away from me? We are BOG. Resistance is voltage over current. 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!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 384 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
I only ask because the same people that get upset at drawing parallels between beastiality and homosexuality are often the same people that have no qualms drawing parallels between animal sexuality and human sexuality. There is a great difference between bestiality and homosexuality, but that is also irrelevant. The only problem with bestiality is that under our laws, beasts cannot show informed consent. But it is one of the arguments trotted out by the Christian Communion of Bobble-heads as though it had any validity. Aslan is not a Tame Lion
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
molbiogirl Member (Idle past 2632 days) Posts: 1909 From: MO Joined: |
Likewise, I had three male cats. When one of the cats, (incidently, the only one of them who still had a pair of testicles), would attempt to copulate with other male cats. Consequently, that was his only option. Kind of like looking at the sexual sociology of inmates, who, if they weren't incarcerated, refer to themselves as heterosexuals. So, does that prove that the cat was a homosexual, or does it prove that he was sexual? 470+ species (including gray whales, antelopes, penguins, bison, walrus, dolphins, giraffes, swans, sheep) engage in homosexual behavior, oftentimes exclusively homosexual (up to 10% of population, much like us). Are you somehow suggesting that an animal that engages exclusively in homosexual behavior is "just sexual"? That doesn't make any sense.
That doesn't answer the question. See my bonobos post.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7799 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
If it seems to have some sort of purpose or order to it, the commonly held belief among evolutionists is that through trial and error, nature will find the most efficient way of doing things. Actually, evolutionists argue quite different. Not the most efficient way, often an inefficient way. Nature finds evolutionarily stable strategies - if increasing efficiency means temporarily decreasing fitness then it is likely to not happen unless the fitness landscape changes and then maybe it can.
What you have just described is the most inefficient, unnatural way of doing things. Welcome to evolution. It produces inefficiency since it only needs to produce organisms that just get by. Hence our eye layout is inefficient, as is our circulatory system. And nature is abound with things as 'unnatural' as homosexuals who occasionally have reproductive sex.
If homosexuality was selected by nature, then for what? What advantageous quality would it be to give a creature the desire to copulate with members of its own sex, but still allow for it to go against its own nature to produce offspring? See Homosexuality and Natural Selection.. One theory is that male homosexuality is a side effect of increased female sibling fecundity. That is to say, if a mother or father has a certain genetic makeup, they might be inclined towards having gay boys or highly reproductive girls. This could well balance out, but gay males can also help in rearing their nephews/cousins etc which would also be selected for. There are many strategies out there, and this homosexual/fecundity connection might be one of them. This strategy can be built upon. A slightly better strategy might be to increase the reproductive drive of the gay males so that they are more inclined to have children to counterbalance there lack of desire for females. I don't know whether this has been looked into: perhaps normal human desire to have children is already strong enough for enough homosexual men for it to suffice (not the most efficient way, but that's evolution for you - sometimes getting more efficient comes at an unbearable cost).
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Hyroglyphx Inactive Member |
quote: Hahahahaha So, it's not enough that you don't want gay people to be happy? You have it backwards. I want all people to be happy. Do you know what another word is for happy?.... No, I don't mean gay. I mean, blessed When Jesus gave His sermon on the mount, He gave a discourse commonly referred to as, the Beatitudes, where He said blessed is this, blessed is that, blessed are those, blessed are they... The point is that those blessings are conditional, as are most things. He is saying, in essence, "if you want to be happy, do this." I want all people to be happy. I suspect that you know that, but that you find it easier to disagree with someone when you detest them. But what kind of person would I be if I were to acquiesce from something simply to appease them? That doesn't help, that hinders.
Now you want to take my right to take the cure away from me? Clarify your position for me, please. You believe heterosexuality is a disease, of which you are currently afflicted? "I marvel that where the ambitious dreams of myself and of Alexander and of Caesar should have vanished into thin air, a Judean peasant”- Jesus ”-should be able to stretch his hands across the centuries, and control the destinies of men and nations." -Napoleon Bonaparte
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
molbiogirl Member (Idle past 2632 days) Posts: 1909 From: MO Joined: |
That doesn't answer the question. It took 5 minutes of googling to find several theories: Hutchinson's 1959 theory of balanced superior heterozygotic fitnessMacIntyre and Estep's 1993 sperm competition theory Getz's 1993 density-dependent polymorphism theory McKnight's 1997 frequency-dependent sexual selection theory Should you wish to discuss this further, I'd be more than happy to start a new thread re: "Is Homosexuality Natural?".
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Wounded King Member Posts: 4149 From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA Joined: |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Hyroglyphx Inactive Member |
There is a great difference between bestiality and homosexuality, but that is also irrelevant. Which is why I was wondering somebody had mentioned it.
The only problem with bestiality is that under our laws, beasts cannot show informed consent. Its not an arbitrary law, Jar. But, I digress since we've been over this before.
But it is one of the arguments trotted out by the Christian Communion of Bobble-heads as though it had any validity. Ah, you have an unending supply of invectives Jar. "I marvel that where the ambitious dreams of myself and of Alexander and of Caesar should have vanished into thin air, a Judean peasant”- Jesus ”-should be able to stretch his hands across the centuries, and control the destinies of men and nations." -Napoleon Bonaparte
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 384 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
There is a lot of crap talk about homosexuality, but the facts are that there really isn't anything homosexuals can't do that heterosexuals can.
Homosexual folk hold down jobs, earn money, care for children, can even have children. This has been true since the beginning. They are creative, productive, and pretty much indistinguishable from heterosexuals. In older societies the homosexual men could hunt, could farm, could fish, could forage. They could build shelters, dig ditches, tell stories around the campfire. The homosexual women could cook, could weave, could make clothing, pottery, help raise children, teach children. The social advantage in more primitive societies would be reduced competition for mates and so a society with a higher percentage of homosexual members might have an advantage over a similar society with fewer homosexuals. Aslan is not a Tame Lion
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024