Born Gay? Legit or not.

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Users who are viewing this thread

thanks for playing? are you 9?

i was just stating a simple fact. no matter how many "damn good points" on the matter you are presented with you can't accept that homosexuality isn't a matter of choice without invalidating your fundamentalist belief that it's a sin.

Um I think lying is a sin and is just as bad as being gay. You are trying to rationalize that I think homosexuality is worse than any other sin. I don't think like that. And it's going to take a lot more than "a good point" to change my mind that lying and homosexuality is not sins.
 
natural selection doesn't have a purpose

That's where the theory of evolution runs into problems, though. If the above is really the case, there should be literally billions of mutations and species that have died out immediately over the history of the planet.
 
How about those gay penguins or polar bears?

Don't forget about lesbian tigresses!

Rainbow_Tiger_13_by_TomboyTigress.jpg


GRRRRRROWL!
 
That's where the theory of evolution runs into problems, though. If the above is really the case, there should be literally billions of mutations and species that have died out immediately over the history of the planet.

natural selection means individuals that are better adapted to their environment are more likely to pass on their genes. that's all. there is no "purpose". it is not a decree that recessive traits that prevent breeding have to be weeded out regardless of environmental pressure.
 
My contention with this "damn good point" would be that impotence (to my knowledge) is generally something that develops over the course of someone's life. It is not a condition that people are commonly born with--certainly not 5-10% of the male population (as is claimed with homosexuality). For me to consider this to be a legitimate argument in opposition to Mags' "natural selection" point, I would need someone to identify for me a similarly commonly occurring genetic condition that inherently prevents procreation.

By "impotence" I was referring to the whole umbrella of sexual dysfunction, both male and female. It can be caused by disease (which can have genetic roots) and birth defects. Birth defects aren't necessarily genetic (though they can be), but certainly occurring prior to birth and unchosen.

Also, the exact figures (5-10%) is something of a red herring. My example doesn't have to be a perfect one-to-one mapping (mirrors homosexuality in every way) and, in fact, I never intended it to be as you can see by the disclaimer in the middle of my post. The point is that there are naturally occurring things that limit or inhibit reproduction which are quite clearly not chosen.

If sexual dysfunction doesn't work for you, we can easily select another, like those born with severe mental handicaps. While some people with minor developmental disabilities can procreate, there are those with more extreme versions who can't, because they aren't capable of the social interactions for obvious reasons. Many of these cases do have genetic/chromosomal basis.

While I feel slightly uncomfortable comparing homosexuality to these types of things, as previously mentioned, it's these types of things that have universal agreement in not being chosen, so they serve to make the point that just because something is inhibiting to an individual's ability to reproduce does not mean it's rendered impossible by "natural selection."
 
Last edited:
natural selection means individuals that are better adapted to their environment are more likely to pass on their genes. that's all. there is no "purpose". it is not a decree that recessive traits that prevent breeding have to be weeded out regardless of environmental pressure.

So you are saying gay people aren't adapting to their environment? What about those "gay penguins" that were forced to be caged together? They adapted to their environment. So they won't pass that gene on? What makes that any different?

Also, this is the reason I question evolution. So if the mutation of "natural selection" is a slow process; then a minute change wouldn't give them an advantage at all. So if a fish needs legs and lungs to survive on land, then how would the transition be small? You would have to completely change the respiratory system enough to be able to breath out of water. There can't be hundreds of variances to get to the point because they would drown in water.
 
natural selection means individuals that are better adapted to their environment are more likely to pass on their genes. that's all. there is no "purpose". it is not a decree that recessive traits that prevent breeding have to be weeded out regardless of environmental pressure.

Micro-evolution has nothing to do with speciation, though. That's merely "the strong shall survive", and those genes are passed in mating rituals, depending on species.

I'm talking about macro-evolution, and how it occurs. I also wonder what the rate of speciation is, and how that is governed. What causes a species to mutate into a new species, to the point that the genetic structure is altered?

Also, weren't you just insulting Mags ("are you 9?") a few posts ago, yet now you're talking about breeding in a thread dedicated to a gay genetic deviation?
 
By "impotence" I was referring to the whole umbrella of sexual dysfunction, both male and female. It can be caused by disease (which can have genetic roots) and birth defects. Birth defects aren't necessarily genetic (though they can be), but certainly occurring prior to birth and unchosen.

Also, the exact figures (5-10%) is something of a red herring. My example doesn't have to be a perfect one-to-one mapping (mirrors homosexuality in every way) and, in fact, I never intended it to be as you can see by the disclaimer in the middle of my post. The point is that there are naturally occurring things that limit or inhibit reproduction which are quite clearly not chosen.

If sexual dysfunction doesn't work for you, we can easily select another, like those born with severe mental handicaps. While some people with minor developmental disabilities can procreate, there are those with more extreme versions who can't, because they aren't capable of the social interactions for obvious reasons. Many of these cases do have genetic/chromosomal basis.

While I feel slightly uncomfortable comparing homosexuality to these types of things, as previously mentioned, it's these types of things that have universal agreement in not being chosen, so they serve to make the point that just because something is inhibiting to an individual's ability to reproduce does not mean it's rendered impossible by "natural selection."

So being gay is a handicap? I'm confused... I'm not trying to be argumentative. I'm trying to figure out your actual opinion on "homosexuality"
 
Also, this is the reason I question evolution. So if the mutation of "natural selection" is a slow process; then a minute change wouldn't give them an advantage at all. So if a fish needs legs and lungs to survive on land, then how would the transition be small? You would have to completely change the respiratory system enough to be able to breath out of water. There can't be hundreds of variances to get to the point because they would drown in water.

This is an old question that has been covered quite a few times. Really, if you want to challenge evolution, you should take the necessary classes or at least read up on it so that you've already run across these questions being asked and answered. There's no point re-asking questions that have been asked and responded to thousands of times in the past century.

This provides a very quick primer: http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evo101/VIICComplexity.shtml

The classic version of this question is "What good is half an eye?" so if you google that, you can get more information.
 
There can't be hundreds of variances to get to the point because they would drown in water.

That's been my biggest problem with macro-evolution since high school. I'm not a creationist, though, so I'll put that out there.

To me, the would have to be millions/billions of genetic variances to advance a species to the point it is something different. Some people subscribe to the 'big jump' theory, but if that's the case, wouldn't there be failed examples of new species that can't survuve, even in modern times? We won't even get into the larger issues with evolution, starting at the time of primordial soup, abiogenesis, and such.
 
Also, weren't you just insulting Mags ("are you 9?") a few posts ago, yet now you're talking about breeding in a thread dedicated to a gay genetic deviation?

I told him thanks for playing because he attacked and generalized my thinking to all people that have a religious faith. I guess he thinks that's school yard banter.
 
So being gay is a handicap? I'm confused...

I've covered that in both my posts:

I am also not comparing them as a condition (as some might be tempted to think that since impotence is generally perceived as an affliction or a system flaw, that I am saying homosexuality is also an affliction or a flaw...something I do not believe at all).

While I feel slightly uncomfortable comparing homosexuality to these types of things, as previously mentioned, it's these types of things that have universal agreement in not being chosen, so they serve to make the point that just because something is inhibiting to an individual's ability to reproduce does not mean it's rendered impossible by "natural selection."
 
This is an old question that has been covered quite a few times. Really, if you want to challenge evolution, you should take the necessary classes or at least read up on it so that you've already run across these questions being asked and answered. There's no point re-asking questions that have been asked and responded to thousands of times in the past century.

This provides a very quick primer: http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evo101/VIICComplexity.shtml


The classic version of this question is "What good is half an eye?" so if you google that, you can get more information.

That's a rather elitist way to look at it. "Here, read this article". There are holes in the theory of evolution in terms of macro-evolution and the origin of life. Claiming that there are not, and pulling out the "you're just uneducated" card, shows your own ignorance, IMO.

In terms of a gay genetic code, I am willing to accept that it exists, based on observation. Besides, Tim Tebow pings my GAYDAR big time!

[video=youtube;ojXkblN7pC0]

 
Last edited:
This is an old question that has been covered quite a few times. Really, if you want to challenge evolution, you should take the necessary classes or at least read up on it so that you've already run across these questions being asked and answered. There's no point re-asking questions that have been asked and responded to thousands of times in the past century.

This provides a very quick primer: http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evo101/VIICComplexity.shtml

The classic version of this question is "What good is half an eye?" so if you google that, you can get more information.

We aren't talking about eyes. We are talking about the respiratory and circulator systems. The slightest change can kill an animal. Being without an eye means you can still survive through the mutation. Being able to not breath in water will kill you. Not being able to convert dissolved oxygen in water will kill you.
 
I've covered that in both my posts:

But then they hold no relevance to the point. If homosexuality isn't similar to genetic mutations like "down syndrome" or "impotence"; then how can you bring it up?
 
That's a rather elitist way to look at it. "Here, read this article". There are holes in the theory of evolution in terms of macro-evolution and the origin of life. Claiming that there are not, and pulling out the "you're just uneducated" card, shows your own ignorance, IMO.

Yeah I was a little twisted by the comment of "I don't understand, which is why I am wrong". I think I understand it quite well. I guess he, like crowbot, assume that I am another facist religious fanatic.
 
So you are saying gay people aren't adapting to their environment? What about those "gay penguins" that were forced to be caged together? They adapted to their environment. So they won't pass that gene on? What makes that any different?

Also, this is the reason I question evolution. So if the mutation of "natural selection" is a slow process; then a minute change wouldn't give them an advantage at all. So if a fish needs legs and lungs to survive on land, then how would the transition be small? You would have to completely change the respiratory system enough to be able to breath out of water. There can't be hundreds of variances to get to the point because they would drown in water.

lungs did not evolve from gills. they are separate structures, and presumably the aquatic to terrestrial transitional species had both, as do modern frogs when they transition from tadpoles to adults.
 
That's a rather elitist way to look at it. "Here, read this article". There are holes in the theory of evolution in terms of macro-evolution and the origin of life. Claiming that there are not, and pulling out the "you're just uneducated" card, shows your own ignorance, IMO.

It's not elitist to note that a question being asked isn't new and has already been explained many times. If I come to a basketball discussion and say "The reason I think basketball is easy is because how can the defense stop you if you just pick up the ball and run with it?" would it be elitist to point out that I clearly haven't read up on the rules and should do so? I think it would be a reasonable request.

Obviously, I think it's perfectly within reason that evolution could be challenged, which is why I said that if you want to challenge it, you should at least learn about it, so you know what challenges have already been raised and responded to. Coming into a discussion with challenges that were raised and answered many times is a little pointless.
 
Last edited:
We aren't talking about eyes. We are talking about the respiratory and circulator systems. The slightest change can kill an animal. Being without an eye means you can still survive through the mutation. Being able to not breath in water will kill you. Not being able to convert dissolved oxygen in water will kill you.

It's the same principle. You're asking how transitory systems can come about, which is exactly what the "What good is half an eye?" question deals with.
 
lungs did not evolve from gills. they are separate structures, and presumably the aquatic to terrestrial transitional species had both, as do modern frogs when they transition from tadpoles to adults.

How do you know this? How did amphibians evolve? Both lungs and gills must have evolved from SOMETHING, right?

Please explain.
 
That's been my biggest problem with macro-evolution since high school. I'm not a creationist, though, so I'll put that out there.

To me, the would have to be millions/billions of genetic variances to advance a species to the point it is something different. Some people subscribe to the 'big jump' theory, but if that's the case, wouldn't there be failed examples of new species that can't survuve, even in modern times?

99% of species that have ever existed are extinct. what more do you want.
 
yes it does. speciation is the result of a lot of "micro" evolution.

Well, that's one theory. At which point does a new species develop? Shouldn't there be many different variations of one species then?
 
lungs did not evolve from gills. they are separate structures, and presumably the aquatic to terrestrial transitional species had both, as do modern frogs when they transition from tadpoles to adults.

That is a massive mutation that takes a drastic transition. If that were the case, then we would see many species in mid process. We would find animals with both lungs and gills. It would be pretty common during that transitional phase and we would have millions of fossil records to prove it. When an animal is buried in sludge or "earth"; they can be fossilized very easily. And transitioning from water to land would have many opportunities; especially if it took millions of years to transition to have sludge or earth bury a few thousand species.
 
99% of species that have ever existed are extinct. what more do you want.

Most of those species we know existed for tens of thousands, if not millions, of years. What makes one species advance to the point it is another species?
 
How do you know this? How did amphibians evolve? Both lungs and gills must have evolved from SOMETHING, right?

Please explain.

lungs and gills evolved from proto-lungs and proto-gills. if you're asking for the technical details it's not hard to research this stuff.
 
It's the same principle. You're asking how transitory systems can come about, which is exactly what the "What good is half an eye?" question deals with.

That's not an answer, Minstrel. That's an excuse. Address the point at hand.
 
Back
Top