Oh why am I wasting my time on you?....lol Ok I will make an exception just this one time.
Even though as humans we can deviate our sexual behavior for pleasure the sex act its self is designed through the evolutionary process to ontinue life. Homosexual activity does not continue life. Yes people can commit homosexual acts and yes they can be homosexuals but it serves no obvious purpose.
To claim its justified due to the fact that it has existed so long could also be applied to diabetes or any number of other genetic birth defects.
30 comments
Now now Mike, that's a No True Scotsman fallacy, since he hasn't actually demonstrated anything that contradicts atheism.
Uh, not just homosexuality, but even an increase in it, could be entirely "justified" (odd choice of words) by evolution.
First you say that humans can deviate their sexual behaviour for pleasure and then you claim that homosexuality is a genetic birth defect. So which is it or are you just talking out of your ass? Strike one.
Naturalistic fallacy. The way things are naturally has no normative value. In other words, the facts of biological nature, like evoluton (even if completely true), can't create an "ought."
yes they can be homosexuals but it serves no obvious purpose
Social sexuality. It's not just for reproduction, you doofus. Sex and intimacy bonds people, supporting emotional ties and helps support society at large. Society is made stronger by those who aren't baby-machines and this helps the baby machines stay baby machines. Thus the species survives. That's why we're not all strictly homosexual and it also helps prevent over-population. Fuck you for not being greatful!
1. Using "lol" disqualifies you from being part of this discussion.necessary .
3. My mother's a diabetic. She wasn't born that way. So piss off, Conservative Atheist-In-Name-Only.
All right, let's get rid of condoms and all forms of birth control, and if anyone is sterile we should cut them off from society, because having sex with them would serve no purpose.
(This just needed to be said. I doubt the person who wrote this will read over these comments, but I needed a ventin'.)
"To claim its justified due to the fact that it has existed so long could also be applied to diabetes or any number of other genetic birth defects."
Ironically, forcing gays to stay in the closet, get married, and reproduce, as has often been done historically, would tend to make the genetic basis of homosexuality more prevalent.
Oh why am I wasting my time on you? ....lol
AAHG! *hides from evil obnoxious out of place acronym*
Ok I will make an exception just this one time.
Same here. I can't comment on every fundie, but I'll make an exception for you because I don't usually get to debunk the stupid positions of an atheist idiot.
Even though as humans we can deviate our sexual behavior for pleasure the sex act its self is designed through the evolutionary process to ontinue life.
Actually, no. Sex evolved because it allowed for better recombination of genes during reproduction, which meant that the offspring of the individuals that had that trait were more numerous than the offspring of individuals that didn't. It's obviously not necessary for life to continue. (After all, life existed for millions of years before it evolved! Bacteria, for example, still reproduce asexually today.)
Furthermore, suggesting that sex (or anything, actually) evolved for a specific but abstract purpose implies a form of teleology that doesn't actually exist in evolution. Your use of the awkward phrase "designed through the evolutionary process" further suggests that you believe in some form of teleology; it's far more wordy than "evolved" and is often used by theists who are trying to cram their god into evolution somehow.
Homosexual activity does not continue life.
So? You admit that sex is not to be used solely for procreation, and there's evidence to support that position. Aside from the fact that pleasure is always good, social sex helps strengthen a society, and that benefits everyone.
Homosexual sex can't produce offspring, but neither can grooming, playing, or talking. I don't see you arguing against any of those. Suggesting that homosexual sex is bad because it can't produce offspring sounds dangerously like religious nuts arguing that sex should be limited to procreation only because Sex Is So Teh Icky, Sez Da Lawd.
Combining your anti-gay stance with your use of the awkward phrase "designed through the evolutionary process" (an excuse to say "designed?"), your poor understanding of evolution, and your suggested belief that evolution is not only teleological but prescriptive as a moral theory, I'm starting to doubt that you're really an atheist.
Then again, you claim to be a conservative. Perhaps conservativism causes irrationality, which in turn caused irrational beliefs such as homophobia and (sometimes) religion, instead of religion causing irrationality, and in turn causing homophobia and conservativism.
Yes people can commit homosexual acts and yes they can be homosexuals but it serves no obvious purpose.
Pleasure! The ultimate purpose! Duh!
If two men engaging in consensual sex serves "no obvious purpose," then nothing serves any meaningful purpose.
To claim its justified due to the fact that it has existed so long could also be applied to diabetes or any number of other genetic birth defects.
What do you mean by "justified?" Are you talking about whether it's morally justified or whether we know of the specific mechanism that keeps it common?
If you're talking about moral justification for homosexuality, then you're talking nonsense. Homosexuality is an inborn trait which leads to involuntary romantic attractions to people of the same sex. Since there is no voluntary action involved, it can't be morally wrong; it's amoral (not morally relevant) by definition. Actual gay sex is the closest voluntary action you can find, but that's not morally wrong because it harms no one. (Assuming, of course, that it's between consenting adults. Rape is always wrong, whether hetero or homo.)
If you were instead referring to a specific evolutionary mechanism that keeps homosexuality in existence and keeps gays numbering about 10% of the population, I would be of far less help. Consult a biologist.
The last I heard on that matter was that homosexuality remains at a relatively constant level in the population for the same reason sickle cell anemia is found at relatively constant rates in malaria-ridden areas; it's a side effect of a trait of direct evolutionary advantage.
Having sickle cell trait (that is, one gene for normal blood cells and one gene for sickle blood cells) grants resistance to malaria, with few if any health problems. In areas where malaria is common, this malaria resistance is a very beneficial trait. However, a side effect of this trait being common is that 25% of babies will be born with two genes for sickle cells, which causes sickle cell anemia, an often fatal disease. This has an obvious negative impact on reproductive fitness, but the advantage to having one sickle cell gene in terms of resistence to malaria is so important that it will remain, and the frequent birth of sickle cell babies will continue as a side effect.
Similarly, homosexuality may be a side effect of a necessary trait. Keep in mind that men and women share exactly the same set of DNA; the "male-only" Y chromosome is actually a degraded X chromosome with no special new genes on it. Neither a man's Y chromosome nor a woman's second X chromosome are active, so men and women have identical functioning DNA. This puts a practical limit on how much men and women can differentiate. For example, men have nipples as a side effect of women having breasts; it's a neutral trait that exists as a side effect of a necessary trait. The same may apply to homosexuality. Women need to be attracted to men. This trait is too vital to reproductive success to go away. As a side effect, some men are attracted to men too as a neutral (or maybe negative in terms of number of offspring produced) side effect of that necessary trait.
Another explanation is that homosexuality serves a useful purpose of its own. A person who doesn't have any children can help his relatives who do. Because he's gay and doesn't have children, he can help his siblings (for example) raise their children. Because of his help, his relatives are more likely to survive, which carries a reproductive advantage to him by proxy; having someone who shares your genes reproduce is just as good as reproducing yourself.
Again, consult an expert. I'm just repeating the opinions of one expert second-hand with the usual assortment of memory imperfections thrown in.
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.
