Hey evolutionists if Homosexuality is wrong even to your own beliefs ?
it doesn't help to propogate the species and if the species changed to homosexuality the species would not exist .
Why do you attack the Faiths that do stand opposed to it.
47 comments
1) The entirety of the human species will never become homogeneously homosexual, so I'm not terribly concerned about humanity no longer reproducing due to everyone catching teh ghey.
2) Human beings do plenty of things that don't go towards 'propagating' our species. Many men and women choose not to have children despite being straight, for starters. I'm not going to advocate stripping someone of their rights just because whatever it is that they're doing doesn't correspond with human propagation -- you wouldn't force the woman who doesn't want kids to get pregnant and have a child (at least, I hope you wouldn't), so why would you think that forcing people to marry and/or sleep with the gender they aren't attracted to just so they would produce offspring would be okay?
Plus, there isn't exactly a shortage of procreation going on, even in countries where homosexuality is accepted. The world is, in fact, very over-populated, and the birthrate world-round still continues to rise.
@Mat: In this wanker's defense, I must point out that the first line was the post heading. Yahoo Answers will automatically put a question mark there whether it's grammatically correct or not.
The last line, on the other hand, should have had one, and that is the poster's fault.
Because, according to your criteria, fasting, chastity, sterility, and any form of contraception is also wrong. Unfortunately, evolution says nothing about the morality of things, and only serves for an explanation of how traits came to be favored. In the case of homosexuality, it would not come to be favored if an entire population possessed it (then again, few variable human traits are), and it does not promote reproduction, but, given the current size of the human population, something that prevents reproduction of individuals is actually advantageous to the whole of society.
the problem here is that the whole population is not homosexual. I think that homosexualality is kind of like natures own population control. When the body sences that there are too many humans around, it produces children who are homosexual, so they will not breed and we do not destroy our food supply
Sentence structure, punctuation, and spelling aren't very well acquainted with you are they?
And why am I not surprised that your idiotic gibberish was deleted.
if the species changed to homosexuality the species would not exist
Sure. So what? That might make universal homosexuality a bad idea for the species, but it doesn't invalidate the theory of evolution. At least 90% of all the species that ever lived no longer exist for one reason or another.
Don't we need ? a custom-made image ? for fundies putting question marks in the middle of sentences?
Seriously, I see only fundies do it. Why?
What annoys me most about this is not the bigoted view of homosexuals or the bad grammar - I can take that for granted from a fundie. What irritates me is the condescending assumption that breeding is the best fucking thing in the world, and if you don't do it (for whatever reason) you're abnormal. Please! Give it a rest! You're not a special little snowflake because you created a child. Get over it!
@Daken: I'd wager that it has more to do with the "war" that goes on between the X and Y chromosomes during fertilization of the ovum. Both produce toxins attempting to destroy one another which, in some cases, is enough to badly damage one of the chromosomes (usually Y, since it's the smaller and weaker of the two). Obviously not concrete, and I'm certain there is more to it than just this, but if the Y chromosome in a male or one of the two X chromosomes in the female was in any way damaged, it might at least partially account for homosexuality, trangenderism, etc.
In any case, homosexuality is a harmless variant and certainly not a "lifestyle choice" -- there is no purpose in trying to "cure" it, even if it is caused by something like the above, because there really is nothing to be cured. Whatever the cause, the effect isn't at all dangerous, so why fight it? (not that you said anything to indicate you felt otherwise, I'm just posting this disclaimer to prevent anyone from assuming that I think being gay is some kind of birth defect, which I don't)
Um... even in the extremely unlikely event that all of humanity turns gay, the fact that there is still artificial insemination would negate any propagation concerns.
Why do you care so much what private citizens do in their own time in their own home, anyway?
Wait a minute..are you saying that we who support true biology back up those who are trying to destroy it and help them destroy the lives of others?
Is it just me or is this a win win situation for the Jesus freaks?
P.S. - homosexuality is not wrong in my beliefs.
Shit head look, under population of human apes is not even on the list of things to worry about.
Pointing out that your myths are just that, can hardly be considered an attack. Unless your homophobic faith house of cards is that fragile.
Well when the majority of the species is homosexual, then we'll talk.
Like, if everybody was male, reproduction would also be impossible.
Doesn't mean males are a bad idea.
Hey evolutionists if Homosexuality is wrong even to your own beliefs ?
Evolution holds nothing as "right" or "wrong." Just whether it's fit to survive it's environment.
it doesn't help to propogate the species and if the species changed to homosexuality the species would not exist .
Perhaps, but a handful of members of a population =/= all of it. Secondly, it has been speculated that homosexuality exists as a failsafe for when a population gets too large, or are there to care for orphaned members. And even then, just because we won't go out and breed like bunnies doesn't mean we can't contribute to a society. We can hunt, gather, do pretty much anything else needed to advance even a rudimentary society.
Why do you attack the Faiths that do stand opposed to it.
Because you attack for no reason other than blind xenophobia masked with religion. We're different, you don't understand us, thus we must go. Human rights does not work that way.
Here a quote from the Wikipedia article on biology and sexual orientation. It shows one possible genetic explanation for homosexuality. Just as an information, to anybody who hasn't read that before.
"Some scholars have suggested that homosexuality is adaptive in a non-obvious way. By way of analogy, the allele (a particular version of a gene) which causes sickle-cell anemia when two copies are present may also confer resistance to malaria with a lesser form of anemia when one copy is present (this is called heterozygous advantage).[citation needed]
The so-called "gay uncle" theory posits that people who themselves do not have children may nonetheless increase the prevalence of their family's genes in future generations by providing resources (food, supervision, defense, shelter, etc.) to the offspring of their closest relatives. This hypothesis is an extension of the theory of kin selection. Kin selection was originally developed to explain apparent altruistic acts which seemed to be maladaptive. The initial concept was suggested by J.B.S. Haldane in 1932 and later elaborated by many others including John Maynard Smith and West Eberhard.[44] This concept was also used to explain the patterns of certain social insects where most of the members are non-reproductive.
The primary criticism of this theory has to do with the fact that children share on average 25% of their genes with their uncles and aunts, but on average 50% with their parents. This means that to be adaptive, a "gay uncle" would need to somehow assist an extra two nieces or nephews, on average, to reach adulthood for every one of their own offspring they give up. Critics of the theory find this trade-off to be unlikely to produce a net reproductive gain."
it doesn't help to propogate the species
Neither do infertle couples but yet you don't see them as "immoral".
and if the species changed to homosexuality the species would not exist .
1. the entire specises cannot go homosexual.
2.They have sperm banks and egg donors.
Why do you attack the Faiths that do stand opposed to it.
Because it is considered hatred.
Oh, homosexuality doesn't come NEAR the wickedness of those sterile worker bees!
Or perhaps it's not a matter of morality, and you're merely clueless about evolution.
I attack the evil of those who would oppress their homosexual neighbours while citing 'faith' as if that should excuse them.
Since evolution is a scientific theory, which doesn't bother about morality, and has actually found a link between fertility and homosexuality.............well, do the math and tell us the answer.
i don't think people who believe in evolution necessarily believe that homosexuality is a detrimental trait, especially in a species that is overpopulating and wrecking its environment and upsetting the homeostatic balance of the ecosystem.
Homosexuality, in terms of a bioevolutionary trait, may be viewed as a manifestation of urban growth, culture and higher learning that can transcend traditional sex roles which are now obsolete, and population control.
It is clearly advantageous to the species to have an increased prevalence of homosexuality in a population that is well on its way to propagating past the earth's ability to sustain its existence.
If the species changed to homosexuality? Little chance of that i'm sure, since all lifeforms seek to reproduce within the limits of the resources available for consumption.
No entire species is going to turn homosexual, so that's a completely false argument. Many species do exhibit homosexuality, so it's not like humans are special anyway. And I attack the faiths that oppose homosexuality because they promote violence and hatred and lies.
I have to agree with The Arcane on this one, since this beneficial adaptive trait is found in nearly every species as it approaches over population.
C'est la vie.
Christians are wrong, again... Evolution has no goals or morality. Maybe you should try reading some evolutionary theory, since everyone is expected to red the bible.
“Hey evolutionists if Homosexuality is wrong even to your own beliefs ?”
If? It’s not.
“it doesn't help to propogate the species”
Jurie’s still out on that. Lots of species display homosexuality. So it either has a benefit to the gene pool, or at least it’s not lethal.
“and if the species changed to homosexuality the species would not exist .”
Generally, evolution does not move a species in a direction of less successful propagation. If 10% works best (however it works) then it’ll stay around 10%.
“Why do you attack the Faiths that do stand opposed to it.”
Because they’re not opposing it because of any actual science. Just bigotry that was written down a long time ago, AND trying to shoehorn their bigotry into the science. Poorly. As demonstrated above.
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.