Well "logically", according to the rabid religion-haters' little theory of evolution, gays would have been weeded out by natural selection. If they are born the way they are, and they can't "get it up" in the presence of a woman, then they cannot procreate.
62 comments
Let's say we have 20 men and women. 3 men are gay, 4 women are gay. The group still procreates. You fail.
That is also completely overlooking alternative procreation methods (artificial insemination, etc.). More fail.
Only a percentage of the population needs to procreate in order to maintain itself. Arguably, the existance of homosexual feelings could be a form of population control, allowing sexual desires to be met without increasing the risk of over-inflating the population.
Here's the thing though, assuming that sexual orientation is purely genetic, there genetic diseases that kill people before they even get a chance to procreate, but they still pop up.
But here's the thing. Gay people can reproduce, and in many cases they are so shamed by their nature they end up in heterosexual marriages and even have kids. And even if they don't marry, gay men can still donate their sperm and gay women can have artificial insemination.
Genetic does not automatically mean that the parents carry it. It has been shown that homosexual men (why do they not do studies on lesbians?) tend to be later children, so your breeders have already been born. There also seems to be a connection between the age of the father at time of conception and homosexuality. And as someone else pointed out, female hormones in the womb. Maybe it all comes down to the amount of broccoli the mother eats during pregnancy, who the hell knows.
Personally, I think these studies are a waste of time. Nobody spends time/money trying to figure out why children are born left-handed. I'd rather spend the effort on cancer or something else.
"Well "logically", according to the rabid religion-haters' little theory of evolution, gays would have been weeded out by natural selection."
So would sickle cell anemia, yet it keeps hanging on. Care to guess why?
But wait a minute. Are you proving homosexuality can't be genetic because evolution says so? Are you admitting that evolution is true, or only that you don't understand it?
[gays would have been weeded out by natural selection.]
Actually, gays are needed in natural selection. They can help in reducing overpopulization. Also there have been gay animals in nature.
[ If they are born the way they are, and they can't "get it up" in the presence of a woman, then they cannot procreate. ]
1. What about lesbians?
No, they can procreate and do. And homosexuality is needed in the natural world as population control.It occurs in every species on Earth. If gays were meant to die out due to natural selection, then what about those gay animals? They're still around.
do you think homosexuals have different sexual organs or something lucario?
but guess what? they have children! just because gay people don't want to have sex with the opposite gender doesn't mean they can't
One word: overpopulation. I don't know if any studies have been done on this, it's just my own personal opinion. The planet is severely overpopulated, and the way to deal with this is for humans to slow down procreating. Homosexuality is one way in which this can be done. If there are less people who have the "heterosexual gene" (for lack of a better phrase), then the population increase would slow down, as less people are procreating. Now, this is assuming that the only biological reason for sex is procreation. It's just a thought.
Sooo, if homosexuality couldn't possibly be a naturally occurring trait, that would mean your God really likes cranking out gay people? And you hate God's creations? So, you hate God?
You could write a book on this subject. In fact several people have.
For one thing, stop thinking about 'a' gay gene and think of a large web of genes which have some influence on homosexual behavior.
Individually some of these genes could be beneficial to reproduction - for example, and sterotyping somewhat, genes resposible for male personalities into self-grooming and fashion are both attractive to women and found in homosexual men.
And that's completely ignoring womb conditions, upbringing and cultural influences.
@John: It's always tricky trying to judge what natural selection will or won't do. For example, male homosexuality could be caused by a genetic mutation that confers some offsetting advantage on females.
I don't know any of the details, nor have I found any in my rather pathetic search, but it is a possibility that would very neatly explain why homosexuality hasn't (and won't!) get weeded out by natural selection.
I disagree with the suggestion that homosexuality is selected for to control overpopulation. How can something that DOESN'T improve reproductive fitness be selected for? Selection works at the genetic level. Read The Selfish Gene.
Kin selection is the obvious answer.
Also, being homosexual is not the same as being infertile. Flexibility in sexual orientation is advantageous over being exclusively homosexual or exclusively heterosexual as it increases your chances of establishing an effective pair bond.
The fuck? They're "debating" about homosexuality on a Pokemon forum?? God.
Okay, gayness does not work that way... You can't "exterminate" it. So long as people keep reproducing, some will be gay. And queers have found valuable niches in various societies. Anti-gay idiots should really do their research. It's not as if hetero is the only valuable sexual orientation.
@#967668
@Deep Search
If they are born the way they are, and they can't "get it up" in the presence of a woman, then they cannot procreate.
It's called "close your eyes and think of Antonio Banderas". I'd rather just take the turkey-baster approach if there were any real need for me to reproduce, but just about anything's possible.
I must admit that theoretically homosexuality would be weeded out by natural selection. Considering that even if it conferred a survival benefit, the gene itself would not be continued except as a recessive gene in siblings. However this assumes that homosexuality is genetic, for which there is little evidence, as apposed to the significant evidence that it is a developmental abnormality while still in the uterus.
Unless the genes that cause homosexuality are resessive. That way homosexual individuals would continue to be born in a population without detriment to the population, and homosexualit would only die out if the entire population would die out.
Well "logically", according to the rabid religion-haters' little theory of evolution, every fatal or disabling genetic disease would have been weeded out by natural selection.
Fixed.
Either the theory's wrong, or you are.
Why are all the issues fundies care about linked in some way to sex? Abortion, gay rights, sex education....
"Great first the fundies start screaming that gays are unnatural, and now they're saying that homosexuality is proof against evolution. "
Only half of them claim homosexuality proves evolution is wrong - the other half say evolution proves homosexuality can't be genetic.
Genetic =/= Inherited
Take Down's Syndrome. It's genetic, caused by an extra copy of a chromosome. Unfortunately, I believe the majority of people with Down's Syndrome are sterile, so you can't insist that Down's Syndrome babies are born to Down's Syndrome parents. It, like many other traits, is a result of natural genetic variation and copy errors.
@Snarky
No one's posted in the debate for a while; I just remembered these posts about a week ago and submitted them once I thought of it.
Most of the people on the site, by the way, are far-left. A good percentage of the site is gay/bi/lesbian themselves, and most of the regulars are okay with homosexuality and other so-called "sins". There's just the occasional fundie that finds their way to the site, and they proceed to enter a debate, pull the "it's wrong because my fairy tale of choice says so" card, and get their shit ripped apart.
Dear SL:
We are sorry happy to report that you are unworthy of using Lucario in your username. Please cease using this title and desist from further violations, or you'll be just asking for a spike-slap, bitch.
"Lucy" Lucario of the Thunderwall Clan
Aha, I was just wondering why no one ever thinks to bring this up. Congratulations, SIR, for figuring out a better way to go about trying to back us into corners. Humans are not under strain as a species. I will not argue that homosexuality can not contribute biological offspring to the species, but homosexuality also does no harm at all. There is no need for the human race to procreate any faster; quite the opposite is called for, actually. And though natural selection could write them out if we were actually endangered (were it genetic, of course, which I suspect may not be the whole case, since it's not hereditary) there is no need or reason to actively persecute them. The species doesn't benefit. And so, since no harm comes of it, but it would be very rude and unjust indeed to repress it, the conclusion can be drawn that we should hold no misgivings against it. Legally, especially, though there's no good reason to hold personal misgivings, either.
Gays suck let e,m all burn in hell emai
But dearie, as they are NOT weeded out, they must be crucial to the survival of all social animals, as there are homosexual individual in them all.
Ya know, it's not just HAVING the kids, they have to be taken care of until they in turn can have their own kids.
We normal people don't have to hate things in order to disagree. We can calmly disagree, without spewing vitirol.
It's not a little theory, it's a very large, complex theory, one of the strongest we have.
IF
Then you are right. Since you are wrong, one of the premises must be wrong.
“Well "logically", according to the rabid religion-haters' little theory of evolution, gays would have been weeded out by natural selection.”
"If they are born the way they are, and they can't "get it up" in the presence of a woman, then they cannot procreate.”
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.
