Homosexuality selected because of societal function

[patrick jane]

And many heterosexuals do ...

Unfortunately, animals display homosexual behavior within an animal mind, but humans know better. It's safe to say that they enjoy anal penetration and there is absolutely no good that can come from that act. They do it because of the desire to copulate and because they think it feels good. It is sick and immoral for humans to engage in same-sex activity.

 

[Tambora]

Not true. You could defend incest with that logic.

Yep, you could defend a lot of perversion with that logic.

 

[glassjester]

They do it because of the desire to copulate

Right, and the entire reason that desire exists is to ensure procreation.
Why do people seem so surprised by that?

 

[Selaphiel]

Pedos would like to use that excuse.

Well, the arguments for the immorality of pedophilia does not rest upon the subjective feeling of it being icky. It rests on it being an inherently non-consentual act, it is abuse which leads to psychological trauma in the abused children.

Should we let biology determine pedos?

You really need to be able to discern the question of whether something serves a biological function in the animal kingdom (and possibly humans) or whether it is moral. You claimed that homosexual act has no function vis a vis the perpetuation of a species. That is a question for biology to determine, it is not a question of morality.

"Highly unlikely" is no more of an argument that saying it's icky.

It is more of an argument, because it rests on the fact of natural selection. Something that serves NO function or detrimental to the perpetuation of a species gets selected away, it certainly does not emerge in so many species.

Can't eliminate it, it's the main one.

For some, not for others. You do understand the difference between X and a particular expression of X? It is especially relevant when that particular expression is not an essential expression.

Or it may not, and no purpose can or will be found.

That would be the realm of biology. And as I told you, there are theories on why homosexual behavior exists, those theories believe it has a function serving the perpetuation of the species, especially in social animals. Feel free to look it up.

Nothing you have said suggest that it is moral.

I'm fine with it being deemed morally neutral. It is you lot who claims it is immoral, so the burden is on you, not me.

Neither is "I THINK it MIGHT prove to have a purpose someday.

Strawman argument.

1) It is not me who thinks it, it is biologists who study it who thinks it.
2) It is not that it might prove to have a purpose someday, it is that it always had a purpose that is why the behavior is preserved in so many species.
3) It is not guesswork, it is based on well founded principles of biology such as natural selection

 

[Selaphiel]

My argument stands.

The purpose of sex is reproduction.
The other byproducts of sex (physical pleasure, increased affection, commitment), exist to encourage reproduction, and to ensure the survival of the offspring.


Many people engage in sexual activity that is intentionally and intrinsically divorced from its true purpose.


Many animals do, too!

No, it is an absolutely lousy argument that rests on a reductionistic and simplistic understanding of evolutionary biology.

Your fundamental misunderstanding is that the perpetuation of a species is a question of individuals only. That is false. Perpetuation of a species is a question of populations, not invididuals. This is especially true in social animals.

Which means, that even if homosexual individuals within a species themselves do not reproduce. Their sexual orientation might contribute to the perpetuation of the species qua population. Ergo, it serves a function.

The purpose of sex is reproduction.

Your second misunderstanding is implicit in this statement. You assume that in biology a purpose is determined some eternal sense. That is wrong. If there is one thing evolutionary biology has taught us, it is that evolution is oppurtunistic, it APPROPRIATES previous structures for new purposes. Which means, that if homosexual individuals aids in the perpetuation of populations, then the evolutionary process may have appropriated our physiology and our anatomy for NEW functions, in this case the sexual expression of those homosexual relationships.

 

[glassjester]

No, it is an absolutely lousy argument that rests on a reductionistic and simplistic understanding of evolutionary biology.

Your fundamental misunderstanding is that the perpetuation of a species is a question of individuals only. That is false. Perpetuation of a species is a question of populations, not invididuals. This is especially true in social animals.

Which means, that even if homosexual individuals within a species themselves do not reproduce. Their sexual orientation might contribute to the perpetuation of the species qua population. Ergo, it serves a function.



Your second misunderstanding is implicit in this statement. You assume that in biology a purpose is determined some eternal sense. That is wrong. If there is one thing evolutionary biology has taught us, it is that evolution is oppurtunistic, it APPROPRIATES previous structures for new purposes. Which means, that if homosexual individuals aids in the perpetuation of populations, then the evolutionary process may have appropriated our physiology and our anatomy for NEW functions, in this case the sexual expression of those homosexual relationships.

What are these supposed functions of homosexuality?

What's the number 1, absolute best "purpose" of homosexual behavior?

 

[Selaphiel]

What are these supposed functions of homosexuality?

What's the number 1, absolute best "purpose" of homosexual behavior?

That is unclear at the moment from what I understand. One of the more prominent theories is the so called kin selection hypothesis or "nest helper" hypothesis.

http://www.ehbonline.org/article/S1090-5138(06)00069-9/abstract

Then there is the overdominance and sexual antagonism theory:

http://www.iflscience.com/plants-an...scover-evolutionary-advantage-homosexual-sex/

Of course these might not be mutually exclusive theories either. The second theory is based on Drosophila studies. Homosexuality may have been appropriated in more advanced animals for other behaviors such as that suggested by the first theory. Then the latter theory would suggest a theory of origin, while the former theory is an example of appropriation of something to make the existence of homosexual individuals more advantageous while also maintaining the advantage of the raison d'etre of homosexuality.

It would be an equally, if not bigger, big puzzle if a behavior that has emerged in such a wide variety of species (observed in over 1500 species) did not serve a biological function whatsoever.

 

[WonderfulLordJesus]

I'm fine with it being deemed morally neutral. It is you lot who claims it is immoral, so the burden is on you, not me.

What did the character on Saturday Night Live say? "Now isn't that special!" What are you doing here, with a Christian closing, invoking the Bible and Martin Luther out of one side of your mouth, the devil's advocate out of the other? Is there no "Homo Evolutionists in Rebellion Against God for Jesus" website for your "denomination" of Christian?

All the atheistic and amoral blather aside, is it supposed to go unnoticed you're, as if, an ambiguously moral Christian, who doesn't really give a hoot about how God has already weighed in on creation, as well as perversions? Are you sanctified in deception? In truth, where does your stand against God's word point on a moral compass?

Your closing that speaks of light, while you spread darkness? Care to share with everybody who you really are? Anyway, some scripture comes to mind.

2 Corinthians 11

13 For such are false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into the apostles of Christ.
14 And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light.
15 Therefore it is no great thing if his ministers also be transformed as the ministers of righteousness; whose end shall be according to their works.

Matthew 7

15 Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravenous wolves.
16 You will know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes from thornbushes or figs from thistles?
17 Even so, every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit.
18 A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a bad tree bear good fruit.
19 Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire.

 

[Selaphiel]

What did the character on Saturday Night Live say, "Isn't that special!" What are you doing here, with a Christian closing, invoking the Bible and Martin Luther out of one side of your mouth, the devil's advocate out of the other? Is there no "Homo Evolutionists in Rebellion Against God for Jesus" website for your "denomination" of Christian?

All the atheistic and amoral blather aside, is it supposed to go unnoticed you're, as if, an ambiguously moral Christian, who doesn't really give a hoot about how God has already weighed in on creation, as well as perversions? Are you sanctified in deception? In truth, where does your stand against God's word point on a moral compass?

Your closing that speaks of light, while you spread darkness? Care to share with everybody who you really are? Anyway, some scripture comes to mind.

2 Corinthians 11

13 For such are false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into the apostles of Christ.
14 And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light.
15 Therefore it is no great thing if his ministers also be transformed as the ministers of righteousness; whose end shall be according to their works.

Matthew 7

15 Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravenous wolves.
16 You will know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes from thornbushes or figs from thistles?
17 Even so, every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit.
18 A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a bad tree bear good fruit.
19 Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire.

It is so sad when people confuse being a Christian with being one who denies reality. Sorry, I really have no interest in discussing with someone who sound like they are in a constant mode of hysteria.

 

[WonderfulLordJesus]

It is so sad when people confuse being a Christian with being one who denies reality. Sorry, I really have no interest in discussing with someone who sound like they are in a constant mode of hysteria.

Me? Hysterical? Don't flatter yourself. At best, you're mildly amusing, how I picture a Neanderthal would fare as a philosopher. Other than being a collosal bore, you're, clearly, just a fraud, and a very amateur one, at that. Of course you don’t have anything else to say, until the paint dries around the corner you’re standing in. Have a nice day.

 

[glassjester]

That is unclear at the moment from what I understand. One of the more prominent theories is the so called kin selection hypothesis or "nest helper" hypothesis.

http://www.ehbonline.org/article/S1090-5138(06)00069-9/abstract

So gay guys make better uncles?
Weak.

How does engaging in homosexual activity actually help someone be a better uncle?

Then there is the overdominance and sexual antagonism theory:

http://www.iflscience.com/plants-an...scover-evolutionary-advantage-homosexual-sex/

And from that article:

Males with a genetic makeup associated with high levels of SSB produced female offspring with higher rates of reproduction, or fecundity. This suggests that genes associated with SSB could be persisting in the population because they actually confer a fitness advantage in females, despite being reproductively harmful to males.

Did you see that? The article says that males most likely to exhibit same-sex sexual behavior benefit the species when those males have heterosexual intercourse, and reproduce!

Ridiculous. That's basically saying, "Homosexuals benefit the species most when they are heterosexual."

 

[MrDante]

Since you have no knowledge of what causes homosexual desires, you are correct: you are "guessing". I covered the topic extensively in Part 2 of my WHMBR! threads, showing that the LGBTQ movement after spending millions upon millions of dollars couldn't come up with any valid evidence showing that they were "born that way".

Yet a great deal of such evidence exists. So what should we make of your claim otherwise?

More importantly I showed testimony from hundreds and hundreds of people showing that environmental factors (molestation during childhood, growing up in a dysfunctional family: a distant or abusive father, a overbearing mother, etc.) created those same sex desires.

They say their orientation was caused by such things? Or did you just collect stories about people who had rather terrible experiences who also just happen to be gay?

EX-'gays' are the LGBTQ movement's worst enemy, as they've shown that change is possible and that no one is born with perverted desires, meaning that hate crime laws are not needed to protect people whose behavior is changeable.

Religion is protected by hate crime legislation yet religion is very changeable.

 

[MrDante]

The same could be said for a serial killer.

Anything can be said but saying something as noxious as this would be neither honest or Christian.

 

[MrDante]

And I have yet to see a good moral argument in support of a man poking his pee-pee in another man's feces chute.(Sorry, but there is just no way to say it without being a tad graphic.)
Whether moral or immoral, natural or unnatural, it's just downright filthy.
And it (homo butt poking) is useless when considering the survival continuation of the species.
Other than a perverted and filthy way of self gratification, what use is it for the species?

And I've yet to see a good moral argument in support of the prejudice you are displaying here.

 

[MrDante]

It's hard to focus when the subject is so vile.
But that is what we are discussing as to whether this act has any useful purpose for the species to survive.

Yes choosing to hate others is a vile thing, as is comparing those others to pedophiles. So does this act have any useful purpose for the survival of the species?

 

[glassjester]

And I've yet to see a good moral argument in support of the prejudice you are displaying here.

Do you have a prejudice against incest?

 

[MrDante]

Do you have a prejudice against incest?

As Selaphiel correctly stated:

Well, the arguments for the immorality of pedophilia does not rest upon the subjective feeling of it being icky. It rests on it being an inherently non-consentual act, it is abuse which leads to psychological trauma in the abused children.

 

[glassjester]

As Selaphiel correctly stated:

Since you didn't answer, I'll ask again.

Do you have a prejudice against incest?

 

[glassjester]

And still no word as to how specific acts of sodomy empower a man to be a better uncle.

 

[WonderfulLordJesus]

Anything can be said but saying something as noxious as this would be neither honest or Christian.

Here's what you've failed to grasp, Einstein 'o the one-liners of irascibility. The argument has been repeatedly put forth that homosexuality is acceptable, as it's in the nature of the homosexual, is very nature itself, for whatever bizarre reasons people invent. The identical argument could be made for serial killers, whose perversion is in their nature. To argue anybody is doing anything, with claims they were born that way being exculpatory, or somebody noticing something bizarre in monkeys on massive doses of LSD being exculpatory: what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander, which is true of all vacuous arguments, from a standpoint of puerile sophistry, unworthy of even the high school debate team. I can equally argue serial killing goes on in the animal kingdom, among numerous carnivores, is even more natural than being a queer. And Jeffry Dahmer did eat his victims.

Your problem is being an intolerant bigot and not progressive enough, that, despite thinking yourself like a lifetime Craftsman tool of liberalism, as progressive as boinking aliens from behind will be on Star Trek XVI: The Crack Baby Generation, or maybe the message board troll’s meow, your real goal is to keep the serial killer in the closet, separated from a life of domestic tranquility, separated from the trophies and body parts he loves. This is typical white Protestant, fundamentalist bigotry that is not consistent with Chrislam and things sacred that once had to stay in Vegas. Nor is this in keeping with the ecumenical spirit of communion with Ishtar, pronouncements of Pope Francis, the Clintons or much of anything else highly exalted in this, the 21st century, where we’ve determined God finally relented, changed His mind, and will be auditioning for a slot on Bachelor in Paradise. And let's have no more of this talk of Him coming again, to throw every reprobate cretin into the furnace.

Now, let us have a reading from the Queen James Bible…