I'd like to thank all the little people who made this award possible! Hey now, that's not nice. Not nice at all!
My contention with this "damn good point" would be that impotence (to my knowledge) is generally something that develops over the course of someone's life. It is not a condition that people are commonly born with--certainly not 5-10% of the male population (as is claimed with homosexuality). For me to consider this to be a legitimate argument in opposition to Mags' "natural selection" point, I would need someone to identify for me a similarly commonly occurring genetic condition that inherently prevents procreation.
Strawman. Many gay people do in fact procreate. There is certainly nothing preventing them from doing so if they wish to.
mags' argument is misguided. a recessive trait that prevents procreation doesn't have to be weeded out of a massive freely interbreeding population. in that circumstance there isn't necessarily any selection pressure to do the work. and for homosexuality to be genetic in origin there doesn't necessarily have to be a "gay gene" that could be directly selected against by lack of breeding. it's possible (likely IMO) that there is a certain type of overall genetic makeup that is prone to homosexuality, but many people with this genetic makeup DO still breed. in that sense it might parallel impotence - not necessarily directly genetic but potentially a symptom resulting from other genetic factors.
That's bullshit on my opinion crowbot and you've witnessed threee things I've changed my opinion on. Personally I think your kind are the ones that fail to even consider the other side. Thanks for playing.
Exactly... It seems they would rather call out strawman and saying Religious factions will not accept anything else. They just assume if you believe in God than you are just wrong. Terrible way of thinking.
thanks for playing? are you 9? i was just stating a simple fact. no matter how many "damn good points" on the matter you are presented with you can't accept that homosexuality isn't a matter of choice without invalidating your fundamentalist belief that it's a sin.
Um I think lying is a sin and is just as bad as being gay. You are trying to rationalize that I think homosexuality is worse than any other sin. I don't think like that. And it's going to take a lot more than "a good point" to change my mind that lying and homosexuality is not sins.
That's where the theory of evolution runs into problems, though. If the above is really the case, there should be literally billions of mutations and species that have died out immediately over the history of the planet.
natural selection means individuals that are better adapted to their environment are more likely to pass on their genes. that's all. there is no "purpose". it is not a decree that recessive traits that prevent breeding have to be weeded out regardless of environmental pressure.
By "impotence" I was referring to the whole umbrella of sexual dysfunction, both male and female. It can be caused by disease (which can have genetic roots) and birth defects. Birth defects aren't necessarily genetic (though they can be), but certainly occurring prior to birth and unchosen. Also, the exact figures (5-10%) is something of a red herring. My example doesn't have to be a perfect one-to-one mapping (mirrors homosexuality in every way) and, in fact, I never intended it to be as you can see by the disclaimer in the middle of my post. The point is that there are naturally occurring things that limit or inhibit reproduction which are quite clearly not chosen. If sexual dysfunction doesn't work for you, we can easily select another, like those born with severe mental handicaps. While some people with minor developmental disabilities can procreate, there are those with more extreme versions who can't, because they aren't capable of the social interactions for obvious reasons. Many of these cases do have genetic/chromosomal basis. While I feel slightly uncomfortable comparing homosexuality to these types of things, as previously mentioned, it's these types of things that have universal agreement in not being chosen, so they serve to make the point that just because something is inhibiting to an individual's ability to reproduce does not mean it's rendered impossible by "natural selection."
So you are saying gay people aren't adapting to their environment? What about those "gay penguins" that were forced to be caged together? They adapted to their environment. So they won't pass that gene on? What makes that any different? Also, this is the reason I question evolution. So if the mutation of "natural selection" is a slow process; then a minute change wouldn't give them an advantage at all. So if a fish needs legs and lungs to survive on land, then how would the transition be small? You would have to completely change the respiratory system enough to be able to breath out of water. There can't be hundreds of variances to get to the point because they would drown in water.
Micro-evolution has nothing to do with speciation, though. That's merely "the strong shall survive", and those genes are passed in mating rituals, depending on species. I'm talking about macro-evolution, and how it occurs. I also wonder what the rate of speciation is, and how that is governed. What causes a species to mutate into a new species, to the point that the genetic structure is altered? Also, weren't you just insulting Mags ("are you 9?") a few posts ago, yet now you're talking about breeding in a thread dedicated to a gay genetic deviation?
