It seems to be that one of the primary tenets of liberalism is anti-creation / pro-evolution. (not that that's a bad thing). But how about the gay issue? Aren't gays, by their very nature, the antithesis of evolution? In order for evolution to surge forward, isn't procreation necessary? If our hairy little ancestors had been homosexual, would we even be here? Or has Evolution/nature purposely played a key role in suppressing it in order to advance the species. Would that be a form of natural selection? [heterosexuals good - procreation happen / homosexuals bad - procreation no happen]. Thus it's 'natural' to select a mate of the opposite sex, but not 'natural' to select a mate of the same sex. Let's not get emotional about this...this is science.
Evolution merely is. Evolution doesn't care whether your are fertile or you are not- if you are not fertile you don't pass on your genes- and Evolution is fine with that. There is no 'Good' when it comes to Evolution- there is no moral judgement, no 'natural'- like I said it merely is. If you don't reproduce you don't pass on your genes. And thats all that means. Nature, Evolution and the Earth all continue on- even the human species continues on. Presuming for this discussion that homosexuality is something a person is born as, we don't know how this affects the overall human race. Clearly the human race is reproducing just fine- however in the Western World- and in Japan- heterosexuals are choosing not to reproduce. Does this mean to you that heterosexuals are being 'bad'?
"progressives" are first and foremost devoted to advancing their political and personal power. They support something based on its ability to advance their agenda, not on any sense of good/bad. Of course homosexuality is deviant from a biological/evolutionary sense, and anyone with an ounce of sense knows it. But you won't get the gays to admit it since it damages their political campaign for "equality".
In a way, you're right. It's initial intent was and remains merely a question that may or may not provoke some interesting responses. Getting bigoted responses Is good. or bad, depending on how you look at it. It doesn't matter though, Like it or not, I don't care..it's a valid question. Is homosexuality counter survival for a species or not and why?
Evolutionary biologist, Richard Dawkins, has a few theories: [video=youtube;MHDCAllQgS0]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MHDCAllQgS0[/video]
Here is more food for thought. If the gay uncle served a useful family function and in fact increased the capacity of his brothers/sisters raising children to adulthood, in fact his genetic line are being reproduced more effectively, just not by him. http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn13674-evolution-myths-natural-selection-cannot-explain-homosexuality.html#.VBovMfldXy5 http://chronicle.com/article/The-Evolutionary-Mystery-of/135762/
My 20 minutes has expired. So I'll just keep going here. Post # 19 http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=365668 Puts one of the points above made by Dawkins in clearer language I think. "The heritable unit isn't the trait, it's the gene. So you don't ask yourself, "what is the evolutionary advantage of homosexuality." You properly ask yourself (assuming any genetic predisposition) "what is the evolutionary advantage of the gene that predisposes to homosexuality." The answer is, we don't know what those genes are (if they exist) and we don't know what they DO, so we can't answer the question. But it's hardly a paradox. I have no problem imagining an advantageous gene which, as a byproduct, predisposes a certain percentage of its carriers to be gay. Particularly if that predisposition only expressed itself under certain circumstances - for instance in the presence of other genes, or in the right environment. And in fact there's evidence that not only are genes a factor, but so is the hormonal environment in the womb."
Evolution thrives through diversity, actually. The more variety available in an interbreeding population, the more evolutionary possibilities it has.
I wonder what the stats are on gay reproduction? We can be certain it's not zero. And then there are other complexities to consider, especially where our genome is considered. Full-blown homosexuality may just be a side-effect of other more beneficial mutations among humans and other animals that happen to feature it. We could also ask what good the serial killer gene, if there is such a thing, does, though its effects are also considerably different. A man who targets and kills women is hardly helping humanity to thrive, though here, too, there may be more to consider. One thing is that humanity is actually very high in population these days, such that we're in no danger of dying out in the near future. This, we might postulate, actually leads to certain behavioral changes in some people, such that they act contrary to basic human survival. It's hard to imagine a serial killer operating in a small tribe, and it's equally hard, returning to the subject of gays, to imagine a tribal member living as a homosexual exclusively. I think every tribal member would have a strong expectation placed on him or her to marry and bear children, and I think that they would also appreciate the need to do so, subconsciously if not consciously.
I forgot who said it, but either a comedian or an author once noted that the reason for gays is the world needs hair dressers and interior decorators. Maybe it was Robin Williams. I'm also reminded of this bit by George Carlin: http://www.goodreads.com/quotes/251...-everybody-s-going-to-save-something-now-save Gays, like left-handers and other differences in the human spectrum, have a function. Obviously being premium breeders isn't one of them, but the fact gays have existed in about 2% of the population for thousands of years indicates there's a reason for their presence.
no progeny, no diversity, no thriving. species terminated. Unless of course the species adapted (evolved) in other directions (?) homosexual bonding and intersexual bonding for procreation. (threesome / foursome family units). But then, mankind wouldn't really be the way it is now, would it. Entirely different dynamics would be in place.
You ignored the rest of my post. I'm thinking you fail to understand and appreciate what a complex thing life is, and so just how complex its evolution is. It's not as simple as more babies = more successful, period.
I miss that guy. He nailed it on almost every subject and human condition. I look like him ya know. People would stop in their cars and point at me and get excited....Look-Look there's that Carlin guy...he's nuts ya know. Seriously. Plus I lived in L.A.
Is the man who uses a condom for birth control also a deviant from a biological and evolutionary sense? The woman who is on the pill? Are the only non-deviants the ones only having sex for procreation? - - - Updated - - - Clearly it has no impact. Compared to the effect of birth control, the impact of homosexuality on the human species reproduction is a drop in the bucket.
Are you kidding? Have you ever check the world over-population problem? Do you know what happens as infant death goes down (due to education and medical progress) and life expectancy goes up? I wouldn't be surprised at all if gay couples were a "normal, healthy way" toward the overpopulation control! Gay couple may have their own children (through the same devices as most heterosexual couples who cannot have children without the intervention of medical science or surrogate procreation), but many will just choose to adopt children who are already alive but are not "wanted" by their own parents. Gay people will not have a half dozen children "just because" they forget to use birth control. Gay parents will be part of reducing overpopulation. . .without interfering with heterosexual parents continuing to procreate. Yep. . .maybe gay parents may be the best thing that ever happened to "evolution!" They will be there to love children, but they will NOT procreate mindlessly!
If, as gays claim, gays are born that way then they are "miswired" and deviant. In a heterosexual population, the homosexual segment is obviously an evolutionary dead end and a threat to the continuity of the species. Once a percentage of the species does not or cannot reproduce, then the species dies. People who choose to temporarily not procreate are simply exercising a choice.
If they're not interfering with heterosexuals procreating, then how exactly are gays reducing overpopulation? You do realize that the kids they adopt are still part of the world's population, right?
