Enjoy, WEB.

__________________
All opinions guaranteed not to rust, rot, ravel, or roll downhill. (Some restrictions apply. Subject to change without notice.)

A thoroughly dumb pile of activist crap. OK firstly, since you're playing the condescension and pretentious route here, how about showing us some sources to back up what you say?

Secondly, it is just a plain lie that homosexuality is not an evolutionary disadvantage. I know that you will never accept anything that does not fit with your pro-homosexuality agenda, but the very basis of evolution is who and what gets to pass on its genes. Homosexuals exhibiting pure homosexual behavior are not naturally able to pass on their genes. Try to get that through your thick skull.

Thirdly, you rely upon a strawman to build your argument. No doubt the human body is complicated. We are extremely complicated organisms. However, this in no way validates your claim that traits are tied to each other. Rather, humans evolved over millions of years, if not billions of years from single-cell life forms. Over this enormous timespan organisms became more and more complex. We do not know which sequence of DNA controls what, but our ignorance does not prove your theory.

Lastly, it is highly unlikely that traits would be linked to each other as this would prevent the high degree of evolution and near-perfection that you find so mysterious.

I know that you are too much of a sophist to give an intelligent or straightfoward reply. You can only hide behind political correctness and personal attacks (i.e. "small minded people", "bigot", etc). People like you really are a menace and we need to destroy the political correctness shield you abuse and hide behind.


WEB

Run...

Ok, what do you want a source for? Shall I send you a reading list?

"...a plain lie that homosexuality is not an evolutionary disadvantage." I would like you to demonstrate the correctness of this accusation please.
"Homosexuals exhibiting pure homosexual behavior"? Does Mr. Hard help you think this stuff up?

Aren't you the one who is maintaining that evolution weeds out the disadvantageous traits? Why hasn't homosexuality been weeded out? You are the one who say that it's "...a major imperfection...", so why hasn't it been weeded out?????? I'm not nearly as God-like in my knowledge as you are so I suspect that maybe it's not a major imperfection--except to bigots. (Bigotry is a combination of fear and ignorance, seems to fit the situation to me at least as well as all the epithets you have applied to me, don't you think? Please note that I haven't resorted to obscence sexual accusations either, unlike some people in this discussion.)


Nor does our ignorance DISPROVE my suggestion that maybe we don't know enough about the process to state with God-like certainty that "...it's a major imperfection..." All I'm arguing is that we don't know enough to start condemning people for a trait of which we do not know the genesis or mechanism.

Twaddle, you have nothing on which to base such a sweeping statement. Note your quotes from paragraph 2 of your post: "the human body is complicated. We are extremely complicated organisms." "...humans evolved over millions of years, if not billions of years from single-cell life forms. Over this enormous timespan organisms became more and more complex. We do not know which sequence of DNA controls what..." So, WE don't know enough, but YOU are so God-like that you can make sweeping statements and condemn millions of people because you KNOW what major imperfections have slipped past the evolutionary process for thousands of years.

__________________
All opinions guaranteed not to rust, rot, ravel, or roll downhill. (Some restrictions apply. Subject to change without notice.)

No, just a credible source (preferably one that can be read on the internet, but if you don't have that, I'll settle for whatever you do have) that says that homosexuality is intextricably linked to increased fertility, as you claim.

Sure you got it. OK, when a man and a woman has sex, it can produce a child. The man inserts his penis into a woman's vagina and injects sperm into her uterus. The sperm travels inside the woman, until it reaches her ovaries. One of the sperm enters the egg and fertilizes it. The sperm contains half the chromosomes required for the DNA, and the egg contains the other half. This zygote then travels down to the uterus and develops into an embryo, a fetus, and then a baby. The parent's DNA is passed onto their child. Half from the mother, half from the father.

OK, now when homosexuals engage in sex they do not fertilze any eggs. A man fucks another man up the ass and men do not have ovaries, so there is no reproduction there. Women may insert their fingers and tongues into each others vaginas, but there is no sperm there, so no reproduction can occur.

I would have hoped this might be known to you by know, but don't worry I'm glad to explain things to you.

No, people learn about what sex is early on. Perhaps you were raised to think it is eating pussy or fucking another man up the ass, but that is not naturally occurring sex.

Firstly, I have been making a conditional argument from the start. I always took care to highlight that with caps, and apparently that was lost upon you. The necessary condition is that homosexuality IS GENETIC AND NOT AQUIRED BEHAVIOR. Now aside from that, I also set out another conditions, which you missed. That condition would be that homosexuals engage in purely homosexual activity, which they have not. I have explained this to you twice before. Please try to understand it this time.

No, it's just common sense, which as I see from your comments you are not too fond of.

I'm not acting God-like at all. You are just intolerant of anyone who has a different opinion that you must resort to all sorts of childish and off-topic comments. I'm merely using logic. Evolution involves the constant aquistion and discarding of traits to adapt to the environment and other organisms. If traits were inextricably linked to one another then organisms would fail to adapt and die, or there would remain many useless traits, while their environment changes. It's just logic. You know, following the implications of what you say and seeing if they make sense and don't contradict what we do know.

I don't think you are a big fan of logic or the theory of evolution though.


WEB