Homosexuality and Natural Selection.

So did I, but the pairings within that community seemed to favor the more daring guys (the types to race cars) than the pious ones. The latter seemed to get more "friends".I was raised Protestant, but had a bit of contact with Catholics and from what I saw/heard they were much wilder sexually despite all the supposed restrictions. I suppose Monty Python's Every Sperm is Sacred bit reflects that to some degree.

---

holmes {in temp decloak from lurker mode}
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)

Up above you will see that I have been arguing that point with Modulous. If we look at a single individual person, using the an evolutionary scale vantage point of passing on one's genes, then a person who only has sex with a member of the same sex could very well be said to be "weaker" than one who has sex with an opposite sex partner.HOWEVER, you are making an error to extend that to homosexuality as a preference, most specifically with regard to being weak "evolutionarily" such that they would eventually disappear through deselection. That is just wrong. First of all we don't know if it is a genetic issue. But assuming it is, then the gene which may "cause" homosexuality may have completely different functions which will continue its propagation. And I am not talking about "raising other people's kids", or something like that. It could be that it is a gene that a mother carries to aid in some part of child birth or something like that, and it just so happens she can also pass it on to a child which in combo with another gene (or lack of another gene) will lead to homosexual tendencies.As long as the gene which causes homosexuality is not selected out, homosexuality is not "weak". It may be superfluous, a product, an appendage, but not weak and certainly not cannon fodder.This is not to mention the fact that homosexuals can have sex in order to have children. They have in the past and they continue to do so. It may be sex of convenience rather than wholesale interest, but what difference does that make? Such activity mitigates the claims of "weakness" on both the individual and societal level.What's more is that you are skipping over that on the individual scale there are plenty of other interests which would then be "weak". People have already mentioned celibacy, which would rope in all priests, as well as apparently Jesus and pals. But it also refers to people that would prefer nonprocreative sex with opposite sex partners.And let me flip this over for you. According to that "individual" scale, the "strongest" would end up being people who are not monogamous, and enjoy as much procreative (perhaps to read unprotected) sex as possible.

---

holmes {in temp decloak from lurker mode}
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)

I'm not an evolutionary biologist but I do support evolutionary theory and I'm not sure why you think this is true. You can measure success in life many different ways. It is simply a statement of fact that reproduction is how genes are passed on, and a trait which is not well suited for an environment faces a disadvantage (perhaps fatal) toward continuation via reproduction. The language doesn't seem appropriate to describe the scientific theory of evolution at all. And if it is a purposeless universe, then reproduction can't be any being's sole purpose.In truth people can choose many different purposes. If anything the earth alone, much less the universe is overflowing with purpose. If a homosexual finds purpose in reproduction then they will likely engage in that act, regardless that it does not match their overall sexual preference.That said, I still agree that if a person simply will not have sex with anyone other than a same sex partner, they aren't going to be reproducing. If everyone "becomes" that way, though I am uncertain how that would occur, it wouldn't benefit humans in the reproduction department. Whoa whoa whoa. All I did was explain how a gene that might "cause" homosexuality could continue to propagate, even if it prevents reproduction. It could do so by not always causing homosexuality in every person that carries the gene, and having another purpose that might be beneficial in some way (healthwise). From what I understand genes can produce more than one effect in a living being. I totally admit there is something strange to claiming that gays have some purpose when at the same time you see them not doing so, and indeed struggling not to have to do so.But that is a problem with a specific group of gay advocates, and not with all gays. I don't buy what appears to be your argument that being gay requires anyone not have sex for procreative purposes. I guess I should add that I think its rare that anyone is 100% homosexual anyway. I'm an evolutionist and relatively atheistic (agnostic) and can tell you there is much purpose beyond gene selection. In fact I don't see how gene selection is much of a purpose if it could count as one at all.The only thing evolutionary theory sets out is how emerging life is shaped via physical environment working on generations worth of genetic changes during reproduction.

---

holmes {in temp decloak from lurker mode}
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)

rrhain also argued that anuses naturally lubricate for anal sex. I think its safe to say one should regard any commentary rrhain had on homosexuality with healthy skepticism.

---

holmes {in temp decloak from lurker mode}
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)