Homosexuality selected because of societal function

[Nihilo]

[h=2]Homosexuality selected because of societal function[/h]

"Bisexuality" might be, but homosexuality cannot be, and is not naturally selected.

 

[glassjester]

As Selaphiel correctly stated:

Still nothing.

I ask if you have a prejudice against incest, and you respond by telling me why you are against pedophilia. Come on. Stay on topic.

 

[glassjester]

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

Selaphiel, care to explain how engaging in illicit sexual activity improves a man's uncling skills?

 

[Stripe]

Evolutionists will make up anything to defend sodomy.

 

[glassjester]

Evolutionists will make up anything to defend sodomy.

Let's be fair. You can believe the scientific consensus concerning evolution without embracing sodomy.

 

[WonderfulLordJesus]

Still nothing.

I ask if you have a prejudice against incest, and you respond by telling me why you are against pedophilia. Come on. Stay on topic.

One thing quite positive in trying to get a handle on the trains of thought around here, like the difficult questions answered with non sequiturs you point out, how arguments may only be applied to one class of natural perverts, I am getting a feeling we may be on the cusp of, at least, the word “queer” returning to its nominal meaning in the language. With absolutely no sexual connotations, this thread is really queer. If we could move on to some things being funny, that is gay, we could at least again make it palatable to read a classic novel from the 19th century, without also gagging.

 

[WonderfulLordJesus]

Let's be fair. You can believe the scientific consensus concerning evolution without embracing sodomy.

I don't know. I always thought that the teachers in some science classes were, in a very real sense, asking us to bend over, after checking our brains at the door, of course.

 

[glassjester]

One thing quite positive in trying to get a handle on the trains of thought around here, like the difficult questions answered with non sequiturs you point out, how arguments may only be applied to one class of natural perverts, I am getting a feeling we may be on the cusp of, at least, the word “queer” returning to its nominal meaning in the language. With absolutely no sexual connotations, this thread is really queer. If we could move on to some things being funny, that is gay, we could at least again make it palatable to read a classic novel from the 19th century, without also gagging.

When you're with the Flintstones, we'll have a gay old time!

 

[Selaphiel]

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

It is almost as if writing on TOL isn't my job...

So gay guys make better uncles?
Weak.

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

By not having offspring of their own? They sacrifice the offspring of a few individuals, but the offspring in the population is better cared for and have a higher survival rate. Doesn't have to be a form of direct causation, nature uses what is at hand. If it has a positive effect on the survival of the population, it is selected for. Obviously that is not really a factor today, it assumes a population that is under pressure from its environment, as does all evolutionary adaptations.

And from that article:

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."

Once again, you fail to understand evolutionary biology. Even if the homosexuality is just a side effect of that gene, it explains the preservation of that gene. That theory is more about exploring a possible origin of it. Then there might be other species where more of the homosexuality part of that gene is appropriated for a function of its own (as in the kin selection theory.

Do you have an actual argument against the morality of homosexuality? Your teleology argument doesn't hold water: Deriving a naught from nature is every bit as invalid as deriving an ought.

 

[WonderfulLordJesus]

When you're with the Flintstones, we'll have a gay old time!

Murgatroid! I know! It got to where I couldn't watch Fred and Barney, without being very suspicious of just why they're such good buddies. Or you're reading along in something like Dickens, and it's like he's telling you everybody at the garden party, some characters you even came to admire, are really just pervs.

 

[Selaphiel]

Do you have a prejudice against incest?

It is wildly harmful to the gene pool of any populaton of sexual species?

Now it is your turn, give an argument for the immorality of homosexuality that doesn't rely on the unjusified logical jump from is to ought. What harm does it really cause?

 

[MrDante]

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

Do you have a prejudice against incest?

Why should I? It is after all two consenting adults entering into a relationship. DO you have some logical reason to employ prejudice against incestuous couples?

 

[glassjester]

By not having offspring of their own? They sacrifice the offspring of a few individuals, but the offspring in the population is better cared for and have a higher survival rate. Doesn't have to be a form of direct causation, nature uses what is at hand.

Right. I understand.
So homosexual acts, in and of themselves, have no benefit to the species.

Once again, you fail to understand evolutionary biology. Even if the homosexuality is just a side effect of that gene, it explains the preservation of that gene. That theory is more about exploring a possible origin of it. Then there might be other species where more of the homosexuality part of that gene is appropriated for a function of its own (as in the kin selection theory.

Again. The homosexual act itself, has no benefit. Is that right?

Do you have an actual argument against the morality of homosexuality? Your teleology argument doesn't hold water: Deriving a naught from nature is every bit as invalid as deriving an ought.

I believe that sex outside of marriage is immoral.
I do not believe that two people of the same sex can be validly married.

Which of those do you disagree with?

 

[MrDante]

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

It's not that hard to figure out. That gay uncle would be the logical individual to take in and raise any orphaned nieces and nephews.

 

[glassjester]

Why should I? It is after all two consenting adults entering into a relationship. DO you have some logical reason to employ prejudice against incestuous couples?

Yikes.

 

[glassjester]

It's not that hard to figure out. That gay uncle would be the logical individual to take in and raise any orphaned nieces and nephews.

And the uncle can't do that unless he engages in sex with another man?

That's far-fetched, to say the least.

 

[MrDante]

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.

Aside from an attempt to vilify a minority is there just how is any minority comparable to serial killers?

Would you be willing to make the same association about blacks? The handicapped? Jews?
I doubt it.

To argue anybody is doing anything, with claims they were born that way being exculpatory,

Were you born heterosexual?

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.

So did Andrei Chikatilo...so what?

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.

You lost touch with reality there.

 

[MrDante]

Right. I understand.
So homosexual acts, in and of themselves, have no benefit to the species.

Selaphile asked you for "an argument for the immorality of homosexuality"

You have yet to provide one.

I believe that sex outside of marriage is immoral.
I do not believe that two people of the same sex can be validly married.

Which of those do you disagree with?

These are your opinions and you have every right to have your opinions. At the same time no one has to agree with your opinions.

 

[MrDante]

Yikes.

So the answer is no you don't have a logical reason to employ prejudice against adult incestuous couples.

 

[WonderfulLordJesus]

Aside from an attempt to vilify a minority is there just how is any minority comparable to serial killers?

Would you be willing to make the same association about blacks? The handicapped? Jews?
I doubt it.

It was an attempt, and painstaking, to explain to you the false device being used to argue the homosexual case, that it's natural, which it is, decidedly, not. But, if it were evidenced in some natural aberrations, the argument is still so bogus. Beasts serial kill, also. The whole, wretched discourse is bull (but, but, but... bull is found in nature!), lame sophistry, but let's leave it there, unless you don't want to. It's a free country, but I've got no more detail than what has already failed to register, as to the false nature of the argument, and this aspect of the topic is no longer any more fun. Incidentally, as to blacks, as they have said many times, and surely Jews or the handicapped, they don't appreciate their struggles being equated to being a homo, find that very insulting, though homos and meathead liberals have done just this.

Rather, to all, I'd like to share something with you that even those of you versed in scripture may not have considered. This goes to this idea that, if it's done in nature, such as in the kingdom of beasts, it's appropriate for man, how none of you, created in God's image, seem to dissent. To whit, do you know why God, in the Bible, so often refers to nations and empires as various beasts? Because He will not dignify them as having characteristics that are civilized and humane, righteous and worthy of the slighest exaltation, rather, as history proves, are simply rapacious, hungry beasts, going about devouring flesh, and, unfortunately, comprised of large groups of men. God will not afford nasty herds of rapacious sinners and Satan’s stooges the dignity of manhood.

Perhaps consider this, next time you think man being on the level of beasts is a good argument for anything under the sun.