Homosexuality, Choice or Genetic

[quote]Majin wrote:
Lorisco wrote:
How is it that only gays cannot change to be straight when straight change to be gay all the time and everyone accepts that?

It’s called being in the closet. And thanks to morons like you they can fool their fellow Christians and go back into the closet, continuing the vicious hypocrisy. [/quote]

That’s not necessarily so. It’s already been determined that the overwhelming majority (Some surveys as high as 87%) of those who call themselves “homosexuals” have had or continue to have sex with someone of the opposite sex.

Tell us all how that is possible if they are not truly “bisexual”? They may prefer sex with someone of the same sex but are quite able to become aroused with someone of the opposite sex. A purely heterosexual man is incapable (I assure you) of having sex with man.

Save your personal attacks for another thread and actually respond to this.

[quote]zephead4747 wrote:

Homosexuals don’t hurt us by any means, don’t get me wrong. And by helping us if they were straight I meant there would be more potential mates for people, although it’s not something our society has to really worry about, It is something.

The fact that those animals reproduce in larger numbers is relevant. Let’s say humans have a 90% chance to create a gay or nonsexual offspring. Create 2 children, and they are both homosexal. This happens with most other reproducing pairs, and then there are about 10% of the ext generation as sexually viable. Generation after generation we run out of non relatives, or mates at all to breed with. If you create larger amounts of offspring per birth, this isn’t really an issue, as thee are more people producing more offspring.[/quote]

Your argument is not really about numbers it is about genetic diversity.

However those critters you mentioned that multiply in large numbers are actually less genetically diverse than human beings because the whole hive has the same mother and sometimes even the same father.

Than, homosexuality occurs more frequently when women have more sons. The theory is that some women get “allergic” to the testosterone rush during pregnancy it takes to make the female standard brain male.

The more often they experience it the harder they fight it until it is not enough to fully change the brain into a male one.

That way, the more sons that compete for resources, the higher the likelihood of gayness.

Seems like a perfectly sensible feedback loop to me.

[quote]Majin wrote:
ZEB wrote:
If someone has sex with both genders it’s called bisexual. Tell me how a guy who is actually a homosexual can enjoy sex with a woman?

How can you tell whether he enjoys it or not?[/quote]

I’m somewhat surprised that you cannot figure it out.

Tell me, how does someone who calls themselves a “homosexual” achieve an erection when having sex with a woman? For the fourth time a truly heterosexual is in capable of having sex with another man, how is it that so many homosexuals can have sex with a woman?

How do they become aroused if they are only attracted to someone of the same sex?

[quote]If a man is “in the closet” and at the same time is capable of having sex with a woman then that man is bisexual. He may prefer men, but he’s still bisexual.

3rd time. It only bothers me that you’re being intentionally annoying. If homosexuality would be as accepted as heterosexuality, then you could compare them like you do. But when there’s an obvious motive for them to hide for being persecuted or even their life you just sound ignorant.[/quote]

That’s total BUNK!

What you are saying is because all of the social pressures a man who calls himself a “homosexual” is able to achieve an erection with a woman.

Ha ha…that’s actually laughable.

A man is either aroused by that particular gender or not. What a very foolish argument that you’re attempting.

[quote]As I’ve stated on prior occasions by all means take out any and all information from the far right and far left. We are still left with a great amount of evidence which indicates that many who call themselves “homosexuals” can and do change to “heterosexual”.

We’re not left with anything but surveys on people who want to do anything to hide their sexual identity, conducted by practitioners that want nothing to do with science and perpetuated by religious lobbyists.[/quote]

Once again you’re simply spewing forth the crap fed to you by social liberals. While the following information has certainly been reported by religious groups and those tired of the “born that way” lie, the Byrd, Potts and company have no affiliation with those groups, you do understand the difference?

For example, if Harris does a poll which states that Hillary Clinton is leading in the race for the White House, she may site the poll but she had nothing to do with creating it.

The following information has nothing to do with religious folks:

"Nicolosi, J., Byrd, A., Potts, R. (1998) Towards the Ethical and Effective Treatment of Homosexuality. Encino CA:

Nicolosi surveyed 850 individuals and 200 therapists and counselors ? specifically seeking out individuals who claim to have made a degree of change in sexual orientation. Before counseling or therapy, 68% of respondents perceived themselves as exclusively or almost entirely homosexual, with another 22% stating they were more homosexual than heterosexual. After treatment only 13% perceived themselves as exclusively or almost entire homosexuality, while 33% described themselves as either exclusively or almost entirely heterosexual, 99% of respondents said they now believe treatment to change homosexuality can be effective and valuable."

And of course Dr. Spitzers landmark study from 2001:

"Dr. Robert Spitzer (2001)
Dr Spitzer is a psychiatry professor at Columbia University. He conducted a study of 143 ex-gays and 57 ex-lesbians who reported that they have become “straight.” 2 He reported his findings at a meeting of the American Psychiatric Association on 2001-MAY-9. He concluded, as a result of 45 minute interviews with each subject, that 66% of the males and 44% of the females had arrived at “good heterosexual functioning.”

According to Cnn.com, that term is defined as having been “in a sustained, loving heterosexual relationship within the past year, getting enough satisfaction from the emotional relationship with their partner to rate at least seven on a 10-point scale, having satisfying heterosexual sex at least monthly and never or rarely thinking of somebody of the same sex during heterosexual sex.”

When you get done digesting these two there are roughly 50 more I will post.

Oh the heck with it I’ll post them now:

HERE ARE THE STUDIES WHICH CLAIM CHANGE IS POSSIBLE

(May 9, 2001). Press Release, National Association for Research & Therapy of Homosexuality, Prominent Psychiatrist Announces New Study Results: “Some Gays can Change.” Available at
“Like most psychiatrists,” says Dr. Robert L. Spitzer, “I thought that homosexual behavior could be resisted, but sexual orientation could not be changed. I now believe that’s untrue–some people can and do change.”
Acosta, F., (1975) Etiology and treatment of homosexuality: review. Archives of Sexual Behavior. 4:9-29.
??better prospects for intervention in homosexual life and in its prevention through the early identification and treatment of the potential homosexual child.? (p. 9)
Aries, P. and A. Bejin, ed., Male Homosexuality in Western Sexuality: Practice and Precept in Past and Present Times, 40-61, cited by Joseph Nicolosi in Reparative Therapy of Male Homosexuality. Northvale, NJ: Jason Aronson Inc., 1991), 124-125.

Bieber, I., et al. (1962) Homosexuality: A Psychoanalytic Study of Male Homosexuals. NY: Basic Books.
?The therapeutic results of our study provide reason for an optimistic outlook. Many homosexuals became exclusively heterosexual in psychoanalytic treatment. Although this change may be more easily accomplished by some than by others, in our judgment a heterosexual shift is a possibility for all homosexuals who are strongly motivated to change.? (p. 319)
Bieber, I., Bieber, T. (1979) Male homosexuality. Canadian Journal of Psychiatry. 24, 5:409-421.
?We have followed some patients for as long as 20 years who have remained exclusively heterosexual. Reversal estimates now range from 30% to an optimistic 50%.? (p.416)
Cappon, D., (1965) Toward an Understanding of Homosexuality. Englewoord Cliffs NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Of patients with bisexual problems 90% were cured (i.e., no reversions to homosexual behavior, no consciousness of homosexual desire and fantasy) in males who terminated treatment by common consent. Male homosexual patients: 80% showed marked improvement (i.e., occasional relapses, release of aggression, increasingly dominant heterosexuality)? 50% changed.? (p. 265-268)
Clippinger, J., (1974) Homosexuality can be cured. Corrective and Social Psychiatry and Journal of Behavior Technology Methods and Therapy. 21, 2:15-28.
?Of 785 patients treated, 307, or approximately 38%, were cured. Adding the percentage figures of the two other studies, we can say that at least 40% of the homosexuals were cured, and an additional 10 to 30% of the homosexuals were improved, depending on the particular study for which statistics were available.? (p. 22)
Fine, R., (1987) Psychoanalytic theory. (in Diamant L. Male and Female Homosexuality: Psychological Approaches. Washington: Hemisphere Publishing.) 81-95.
??a considerable percentage of overt homosexuals became heterosexual? If patients were motivated, whatever procedure is adopted a large percentage will give up their homosexuality? The misinformation that homosexuality is untreatable by psychotherapy does incalculable harm to thousands of men and women?? (p. 85-86)
Fitzgibbons, R., (1999) The origins and therapy of same-sex attraction disorder. (in Wolfe, C. Homosexuality and American Public Life. Spence) 85-97.
"The second most common cause of SSAD [same sex attraction disorder] among males is mistrust of women?s love? Male children in fatherless homes often feel overly responsible for their mothers. As they enter their adolescence, they may come to view female love as draining and exhausting.? (p. 89)
?Experience has taught me that healing is a difficult process, but through the mutual efforts of the therapist and the patient, serious emotional wounds can be healed over a period of time.? (p. 96)
Goetze, R. (1997) Homosexuality and the Possibility of Change: A Review of 17 Published Studies. Toronto Canada: New Directions for Life.
44 persons who were exclusively or predominantly homosexual experienced a full shift of sexual orientation.
Hatterer, L., (1970) Changing Homosexuality in the Male. NY: McGraw-Hill.
49 patients changed (20 married, of these 10 remained married, 2 divorced, 18 achieved heterosexual adjustments); 18 partially recovered, remained single; 76 remained homosexual (28 palliated ? 58 unchanged) ?A large undisclosed population has melted into heterosexual society, persons who behaved homosexually in late adolescence and early adulthood, and who, on their own, resolved their conflicts and abandoned such behavior to go on to successful marriages or to bisexual patterns of adoption.? (p. 14)
James, Elizabeth (1978) Treatment of Homosexuality: A Reanalysis and Synthesis of Outcome Studies (unpublished PhD dissertation, Brigham Young University, on file with Brigham Young University Library).
Elizabeth James meta-analyzed over 100 outcome studies published between 1930 and 1976, and concluded that when all the research was combines, 35% of homosexual clients “recovered” and 27% improved.
Kaye, H., Beri, S., Clare, J., Eleston, M., Gershwin, B., Gershwin, P., Kogan, L., Torda, C., Wilber, C. (1967) Homosexuality in Women. Archives of General Psychiatry. 17:626-634.
??optimism in the psychoanalytic treatment of homosexual women. ?at least a 50% probability of significant improvement in women with this syndrome who present themselves for treatment and remain in it.? (p. 634)
Kronemeyer, R. (1980) Overcoming Homosexuality. NY: Macmillian
?For those homosexuals who are unhappy with their life and find effective therapy it is ?curable?.? (p.7)
MacIntosh, H. (1994) Attitudes and experiences of psychoanalysts. Journal of the American Psychoanalytic Association. 42, 4: 1183-1207.
824 male patients of 213 analysts ? 197 (23.9%) changed to heterosexuality, 703 received significant therapeutic benefit; and of the 391 female patients of 153 analysts ? 79 (20.2%) changed to heterosexuality, 318 received significant therapeutic benefit. (p. 1183)
MacIntosh, H. (1995) Attitudes and Experiences of Psychoanalysts in Analyzing Homosexual Patients. Journal of the American Psychiatric Association 1183.
422 psychiatrists were asked if they had successfully treated homosexuals, and did they agree that a homosexual can be changed to heterosexual. Of the 285 responses, which involved 1,215 homosexuals, the survey stated that 23% changed to heterosexuality. 84% benefited significantly by reducing their attraction to other members of the same gender, with a decrease in homosexual activity.
Marmor, J. (1975) Homosexuality and Sexual Orientation Disturbances. (In Freedman, A., Kaplan, H., Sadock, B. Comprehensive Textbook of Psychiatry: II, Second Edition. Baltimore MD: Williams & Wilkins)
?This conviction of untreatability also serves an ego-defensive purpose for many homosexuals. ?however, there has evolved a greater therapeutic optimism about the possibilities for change? There is little doubt that a genuine shift in preferential sex object choice can and does take place in somewhere between 20 and 50 per cent of patients with homosexual behavior who seek psychotherapy with this end in mind.? (p. 1519)
Newman, L., (1976) Treatment for the parents of feminine boys. American Journal of Psychiatry. 133, 6: 683-687.
?Experiences of being ostracized and ridiculed may play a more important role than has been recognized in the total abandonment of the male role at a later time.? (p. 687)
?Feminine boys, unlike men with postpubertal gender identity disorders seem remarkably responsive to treatment.? (p. 684)
Nicolosi, J., Byrd, A., Potts, R. (1998) Towards the Ethical and Effective Treatment of Homosexuality. Encino CA: NARTH.
Nicolosi surveyed 850 individuals and 200 therapists and counselors ? specifically seeking out individuals who claim to have made a degree of change in sexual orientation. Before counseling or therapy, 68% of respondents perceived themselves as exclusively or almost entirely homosexual, with another 22% stating they were more homosexual than heterosexual. After treatment only 13% perceived themselves as exclusively or almost entire homosexuality, while 33% described themselves as either exclusively or almost entirely heterosexual, 99% of respondents said they now believe treatment to change homosexuality can be effective and valuable.
Pattison, E.M., Pattison, M.L. (1980, December) ?Ex-Gays?: Religiously Mediated Change in Homosexuals. American Journal of Psychiatry. 137 (12): 1553-1562.
Authors evaluated 11 white men who claimed to have changed sexual orientation from exclusive homosexuality to exclusive heterosexuality. Corollary evidence suggests that the phenomenon of substantiated change in sexual orientation without explicit treatment and/or long-term psychotherapy may be much more common than previously thought.
Rekers, J. (1988) The formation of homosexual orientation. (In Fagan, P. Hope for Homosexuality. Washington DC: Free Congress Foundation.)
?With major research grants from the National Institute of Mental Health, I have experimentally demonstrated an affective treatment for ‘gender identity disorder of childhood’, which appears to hold potential for preventing homosexual orientation in males.?
Satinover, J., (1996) Homosexuality and the Politics of Truth. Grand Rapids MI: Baker.
These reports contradict claims that change is impossible. It would be more accurate to say that all the existing evidence suggests strongly that homosexuality is quite changeable.
?Each individual?s homosexuality is the likely result of a complex mixture of genetic, intrauterine, and extrauterine biological factors combined with familial and social factors as well as repeatedly reinforced choices.? (p. 245)
“A study conducted by a homosexual couple found that out of 156 same-sex couples ‘only seven had maintained sexual fidelity; of the hundred couples that had been together for more than five years, none had been able to maintain sexual fidelity. The authors noted that the expectation for outside sexual activity was the rule for male couples and the exception for heterosexuals.’”
Schwartz, M.F., Masters, W.H. (1984, February). The Masters and Johnson treatment program for dissatisfied homosexual men. American Journal of Psychiatry. 141 (2): 173-181.
?Certain individuals who want to change their homosexual preference can be helped by a short-term intensive intervention. The failure rate in helping dissatisfied homosexuals establish heterosexual lifestyles after the intensive phase of the intervention was 20.9%, and after 5 years? follow-up it was 28.4%.
Spitzer, Robert (May 2001) Psychiatry and Homosexuality, Wall St. Journal, A26.
“In the sample he studied, Spitzer concluded that many (homosexuals) made substantial changes (after gender affirmative therapy) in sexual arousal and fantasy–not merely behavior. Even subjects who made less substantial change believed it to be extremely beneficial.”
Throckmorton, W. (1996) Efforts to modify sexual orientation: A review of outcome literature and ethical issues. Journal of Mental Health and Counseling. 20, 4: 283-305.
?I submit that the case against conversion therapy requires opponents to demonstrate that no patients have benefited from such procedures or that any benefits are too costly in some objective way to be pursued even if they work. The available evidence supports the observation of many counselors ? that many individuals with same-gender sexual orientation have been able to change through a variety of counseling approaches.? (p. 287)
West, D. (1977) Homosexuality Re-examined. London Duckworth
Behavioral techniques have the best document success (never less than 30%); psychoanalysis claims a great deal of success (the average rate seemed to be about 5%, but 50% of the bisexuals achieved exclusive heterosexuality.)
Zucker, K., Bradley, S. (1995) Gender Identity Disorder and Psychosexual Problems in Children and Adolescents. NY: Guilford. ??we feel that parental tolerance of cross-gender behavior at the time of its emergence is instrumental in allowing the behavior to develop?? (p. 259)
??In general we concur with those (e.g. Green 1972; Newman 1976; Stoller, 1978) who believe that the earlier treatment begins, the better.? (p. 281) ?It has been our experience that a sizable number of children and their families can achieve a great deal of change. In these cases, the gender identity disorder resolves fully, and nothing in the children?s behavior or fantasy suggests that gender identity issues remain problematic? All things considered, however, we take the position that in such cases clinicians should be optimistic, not nihilistic, about the possibility of helping the children to become more secure in their gender identity.? (p. 282)

Please read these studies and point out to me why you think that the authors are indeed lying. I am very serious about this and will not let this point go by the wayside.

Because if the authors are lying I will stop quoting them.

If you cannot do this then you are the one misrepresenting the facts. And you are the one LYING.

It might be time that you take your fingers out of your ears and stop saying “La la la la la” and rethink this whole thing.

Just as Lorisco stated, if one can suddenly decide they are homosexual after years of sex with the opposite sex, why can’t someone change from homosexual to heterosexual?

Oh that’s right, that spits in the face of social liberal and the powerful gay lobby’s who like to perpetuate the big “born that way” LIE!

I forgot, facts are not as important as pushing an agenda when it comes to homosexuality.

[quote]But as I’ve said before as well, even if one person changes how do you explain it? How many African Americans are able to change their skin color?

One. His name is Michael and he’s got a ranch.[/quote]

Well, I know that at least I have you thinking when you have to joke about such a question. The fact is you can’t give me a legitimate answer without abandoning the big “born that way” LIE.

Here’s the answer for you: If even one person can change, and thousands actually have, then it’s probably not genetic. And if 87% of all “homosexuals” have had and continue to have sex with someone from the other gender then their really bisexual (Hint: Males can only have sex when they’re aroused). And if it were “genetic” they would have discovered this homosexual gene by now as we are cracking the genetic code pretty readily.

You’re posting the same lies over and over again. It was already shown to you that some animals are quite capable of having sex with either gender. They’re not “homosexual” they’re bisexual.

Hey, just like humans huh?

Think about it.

I’ve already addressed this as well. People don’t choose consciously, however it is a developmental process which takes place early in life. Therefore, one can become attracted to another of the same sex without much conscious thought process at all.

This has what’s been found that the powerful gay lobby’s, social liberals and the liberal media do not want people to know. One or more of the following four things have occurred to those who call themselves “homosexual”:

-A domineering mother

-A distant father (mother) figure

-Was sexually molested

-Felt ostracized early as a youth, for whatever reason.

WRONG!

It can and is changed all the time. People go from being hetero to homo and from homosexual to heterosexual. And since you cannot respond intelligently to the many statistics that I posted I’ll have to assume that they are in fact correct.

But as I said if even one changes then it’s not genetic. For example a black person cannot change the color of her skin, now that’s genetic.

We don’t know that at all. We do know that the US Military still lists homosexuality as a mental illness. Now why do you think that is?

In fact before the APA was hijacked by powerful social liberals homosexuality was indeed considered a mental disorder. Because something is no longer politically correct does not mean that it’s actually correct.

Sure you do or you wouldn’t be bothering to try to respond to me regularly.

[quote]
But, what do you say to the many who have changed and are now happily married?

How do you know if they are happily married or when gays enjoy sex with women? Do you put on your invisible cloak and follow them for months? Can you read their thoughts?[/quote]

No, but apparently you and your ilk think that you can. There have been many surveys and reliable studies performed. These folks have been followed up with questionaires and have repeatedly stated that they are happily married.

They’ve gone from homosexual to heterosexual-PERIOD.

The fact that people like you don’t like it doesn’t mean squat to these folks.

[quote]But you still have no answer regarding those who have changed.

That’s too bad. If you decide that you really want to engage me at a meaningful level please do the following:

  1. Give proof that homosexuality is genetic. Good luck with this one.

  2. Refute with any sort of reliable facts that homosexuality is NOT more nurture than nature.

Until then you are just another member of the far left who feels that if they say something loud enough and long enough that it becomes the truth.

You mean like the Bible? How nice of you to tell me what I am by the way.[/quote]

No I mean like the 50 plus reliable doctors and scientists that I quoted above. Now get busy refuting each of them. If you can do this you will have the respect and attention of everyone following this thread. Until then you’re no more serious than the typical social liberal who screams “born that way” with no proof. And also dismisses reliable information as “all lies”. Children act that way, adults are supposed to put forth evidence. Get your fingers out of your ears and stop saying “la la la la”, you’re acting like a child, and making about as much sense.

[quote]orion wrote:
Lorisco wrote:
orion wrote:
Lorisco wrote:
orion wrote:
Lorisco wrote:
ZEB wrote:
pookie wrote:

It seems more likely that attraction towards other men is their true nature…

Let’s stop right here, who says that it’s their “true nature”? You? Other social liberals? Those who say that people are “born that way”, with no proof? No one can say for sure.

If a man is able to have sex with a woman and also a man I think it’s pretty safe to say that that man is a bisexual by nature. What else can you call him?

I don’t think anyone is repressing anything. What they’re doing is experiencing what they truly want, that being able to have sex with both genders. Your contention that if any of the men in question were allowed to marry another man so many years ago then they would not be having sex with another man is not valid. How do you know that they would not have been sneaking around on that man with another woman? Since the person is obviously able to have sex with both (bisexual).

Bisexual “true nature”? How can anything different from a procreative model (man & woman) be “true nature” as no other biological mating behavior supports survival of the species?

So unless nature is trying to make this person’s genetic line, through a genetic defect, go extent, it is not “true nature”.

So we are then left with it being a choice and changeable or being a genetic defect.

Where you go wrong is expecting nature to work as you think it does or should and calling unnatural what works differently instead of respecting nature as it actually works and calling that natural.

Riiight! Trying to make it personal again Orion and ignoring the facts?

Show me where a human gene line can be carried on in nature without male/female procreation. But since it can’t occur in nature you have no valid point.

I suggest you read up on Darwin’s natural selection.

I suggest you take into account that biology has evolved (snicker…) since Darwin.

Bees do not procreate either and yet they work and sacrifice themselves for the hive.

Why?

Because a large enough part of their genome gets passed on through their queen or the next queen to make it worth it for their genes to make thousands of not procreating bees to support one that does.

How big of a leap is it to believe that the occasional non procreating human plays a similar role in human societies?

Since homosexuality IS there must be a reason for its existence.

Either the debil made it or nature needs it.

Sounds like you need a course in evolutionary science. The process of natural selection is continual and requires genetic variation. Some of this variation allows the species to function better in a changing environment, and other variation does not. That is why there were a lot of species that are now extinct. So the fact that an abnormality is created in nature does not mean it is functional. And given that humans do not function collectively in terms of procreation, that fact alone, based on the current environment, would make homosexuality a non-functional variation.

But the fact is that all this is not based on biology by psychology. In other words, there is no physical reason gays cannot mate with the opposite sex and procreate. They just refuse to. That is what makes it so difficult to determine if it is nature of individual choice. Either way it still comes back to a non-functional genetic variance or an individual choice.

First of all homosexuality is far, far, far to common to be a mutation. Or to but it another way, if you want to call it a mutation fine, but since nature allows it surprisingly often that makes it definitely a functional genetic variance.

We are back to square one:

You assume nature should work a certain way and call it unnatural when nature works differently.

Yet nature works as it works and it is much more likely that you (or anybody else) simply do not understand how it works yet.

In other words what is more likely, that reality is wrong or your picture of reality?

[/quote]

If you can come up with a method in nature that would currently allow humans to continue the species without having male-female relations, then you would have a point. But we both know that that does not exist.

Also, it is unlikely that genetics would change before the environment. In other words, the theory is that environmental change occurs and as a result genetic changes occurs to allow the human to survive in the new environment. This doesn’t occur the other way around.

So for your idea to hold water there would have to be some environmental reason that humans could not procreate in the current manner, i.e. lack of females to bread with males, etc. But without this kind of scenario there is currently no scientific reason for nature to purposely create gays.

Is it possible that there is a reason that we are not aware of? Sure, it is possible. But given that there is currently no breading issue, it is not likely.

[quote]Majin wrote:
Lorisco wrote:
How is it that only gays cannot change to be straight when straight change to be gay all the time and everyone accepts that?

It’s called being in the closet. And thanks to morons like you they can fool their fellow Christians and go back into the closet, continuing the vicious hypocrisy. [/quote]

I guess you have been living under a rock for the last 20 years. Gays are very much accepted in most all walks of life. We have gay TV shows, movies, magazines, gay owned businesses, etc.

So for the most part, the media celebrates when anyone comes out and says he/she is now gay. And no one every questions that. But if someone states he is now straight you and other mindless drones say that it isn’t true or it can’t happen.

Sounds like you live in your own little world.

Get a grip.

[quote]Lorisco wrote:
orion wrote:
Lorisco wrote:

If you can come up with a method in nature that would currently allow humans to continue the species without having male-female relations, then you would have a point. But we both know that that does not exist. [/quote]

artificial insemination… ur point is invalid either way but i thought i would point this out

also before u claim that artificial insemination is not part of nature… it occurs and is therefore part of nature

Lorisco i see u post often regarding genetic and evolutionary matters and i have to ask what ur academic background is in either of the two?

it seems like u may have had classes in these subjects but then misinterpreted the material in some way or have done some rudimentary reading on ur own

u falsely seem to give purpose to evolution

"no scientific reason for nature to purposely create gays. "

nature does nothing purposefully and i see this misconception crop up all over this thread… many posters assume some teleological reason behind evolutionary forces when there is none

so here is my brief lesson on evolution and im sorry if this is already obvious to everyone

You have a group of goats half white and half black, that have been grazing along some plot of grass and surviving for hundreds of years. In some way a new predator is introduced onto this plot but the predator only has a preference for the black goats. The predator starts eating black goats and thus the relative frequency of the white goats increases. Thus naturally more white goats are produced because there are more white goats to pass on their genes and when more black goats are born they have a chance of being eaten. Eventually only white goats exist.

In this example there is no purpose behind being white. White and black had indistinguishable fitness prior to predator introduction. Once the predator is introduced it is simply a logical progression to all white goats. The goats DNA doesn’t somehow realize that white is less prone to getting eaten and hence the DNA somehow changes itself so that its offspring will also be white.

the same holds true if hunters come in and love white goat fur… the white fur color now becomes disadvantageous from a fitness perspective

another example is tobacco… tobacco’s most advantageous trait is probably that it is addictive to humans… because humans have agriculture tobacco has benefited massively from an evolutionary perspective

tobacco never chose to be addictive nor did its genes somehow sense a particular environment to give it addictive qualities… it simply was addictive… and this lead to an increase in its frequency

[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:

BostonBarrister wrote:
wblah blah blah …
The government doesn’t discriminate at all in terms of who can become a farmer, and the government does not discriminate at all in terms of who can enter into a marriage. There is no person who is incapable of being a farmer, and there is no person who is incapable of entering into a marriage. Let me repeat that so you can comprehend: There is no person who is disallowed from entering into a marriage as marriage is defined.

CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

So, if the definition of marriage included the phrase “a man and a woman of the same race”, by your logic, no one would be disallowed from being married, since there are other members of their race in the country, thus they are allowed to marry (so long as it is within their race).

Would you be ok with that?

Remember, by your logic, no one is actually disallowed from marriage with that definition.

You left out a key part of the argument in the “blah blah blah.” No one is disallowed from holding himself out as married no matter whom his partner may be, male or female. There is no prohibition on same-sex marriage as such - what there is is a specific tax benefit assigned to the particular union of a man and a woman. Having a law assign a particular benefit based upon a particular action is what we’re discussing.
[/quote]

Having a law assign a particular benefit based upon a particular action and, without just cause, restricting that benefit from certain members of society (discrimination), is what we’re discussing.

I think you’re missing the forrest for the trees here. The point wasnt just about race. The point was… you’re using the justification that “Its a fair rule as long as anybody can still get married.” Because, hey, a man can always find a woman to marry, so he can still get married, just maybe not to who he chooses.

This is bad logic, because, using it, the government could impose ANY restriction on marriage it wanted (say, if you had undesirable genes… you could always find someone else with undesirable genes to marry!).

Race is just a good example because that line of logic was one of the things used to impede interracial marriage (arguing that a black man can just find a black woman).

Its simply bad logic and leads to nothing but discrimination and bigotry.

It sounds like you’re putting words in my mouth. I didnt say “Everyone must be equal in everything always!”

Just because men and women play on different sports teams doesnt mean the government can discriminate for any reason it wants.

In some cases, gender is a rational distinction to make (men, being generally physically stronger and more agressive in our society, make more sense to draft than women since the possible duties require greater physical strenth, and it makes sense to draft one gender as to avoid the risk of two parents both being drafted [lets not argue about that, I’m just pulling that out of the air]). In others, it is not (refusing to promote a well qualified woman because “A woman wouldnt fit in with everyone else on the board” or “Women crack under pressure”).

So, its not wrong to say that gender is an irrational distinction in this case (marriage), though it may be in others.

This thinking is bigoted. Yes, yes, that sounds like such an awful insult and I’m just trying to throw a bad word at you to make you look bad. Right?

A telltale sign of bigotry is using logic that “happens” to support a bigoted stance, but does not apply elsewhere. Read over this debate, its rampant:

Traditional marriage (nevermind all the ways marriage is no longer “traditional”)

Doesnt produce children (nevermind marriage of the elderly or otherwise infertile)

The government can discriminate however it pleases (while being against discrimination based on race, class, religion, etc, etc).

Sanctity of marriage (nevermind divorce)

Its ok because no one is totally disallowed from marriage (wouldnt hold water for any other discrimination)

Do you see what I mean? In all these cases, the “logic” does not apply anywhere else, but suddenly it becomes very relevant. This leads me to believe that the ulterior motive is “I am against homosexuality and support laws that favor heterosexuals over homosexuals”.

[quote]HotCarl28 wrote:
Lorisco wrote:
orion wrote:
Lorisco wrote:

u falsely seem to give purpose to evolution

"no scientific reason for nature to purposely create gays. "

nature does nothing purposefully and i see this misconception crop up all over this thread… many posters assume some teleological reason behind evolutionary forces when there is none
[/quote]

I think he meant that there is no selective advantage for there to be gays and so why are they present in nature.

[quote]HotCarl28 wrote:
Lorisco wrote:
orion wrote:
Lorisco wrote:

If you can come up with a method in nature that would currently allow humans to continue the species without having male-female relations, then you would have a point. But we both know that that does not exist.

artificial insemination… ur point is invalid either way but i thought i would point this out
[/quote]

Dude, try and keep up alright? I said NATURE! Show me a couple of monkeys artificially inseminating each other in the wild and you would have a point. But since you can’t, you don’t!

Really?

So global warming is a natural occurrence? All the trees cut down in the rain forest is a natural occurrence? Polluted air and water is a natural occurrence?

Pleeeease! You are going to have to use your brain a little more on this one brother.

Aaah, sounds like you are a chaos theory guy.

Well, let me just tell you that there and thousands of scientists much smarter than I who would disagree with you.

You ascribe no purpose to nature, but that is clearly contrary to what is observed. Here is just a small list of the things that occur in nature that are driven by purpose:

  1. A lion chases a deer, the deer runs : purpose - self preservation. The deer does not just randomly start running for no reason.

  2. A human or animal is exposed to virus, the immune system sends white cells, macrophages, etc to contain and remove the virus: purpose - self preservation, not a random occurrence.

The list could go on, but most will get my point. Your ideas are clearly not supported by literature.

Oh, and my background, I’m in medical research. And you? Just a kid with a computer, that’s what I thought.

[quote]MMG wrote:
HotCarl28 wrote:
Lorisco wrote:
orion wrote:
Lorisco wrote:

u falsely seem to give purpose to evolution

"no scientific reason for nature to purposely create gays. "

nature does nothing purposefully and i see this misconception crop up all over this thread… many posters assume some teleological reason behind evolutionary forces when there is none

I think he meant that there is no selective advantage for there to be gays and so why are they present in nature.
[/quote]

Yes, of course that is what I meant. Inability to not procreate would be a genetic trait that would be weeded out through natural selection, because the genetic lines of those who can procreate would continue and those who could not or would not would cease to exist.

Yet someone will say, if that is the case then why are there still gays? Because it is not genetic at all it is a social/psychological phenomenon.

Priceless to see Lorisco argue with genetics.
I thought you didn’t “believe” in it?

Why can’t you see that evolution doesn’t work the way you wish it to?

Right now there are so many arguments on the table which show you that the will and skill to procreate is not a must for a succesful genotype.

Yet you still revert to Headhunters argument on page 1 (I think, I won’t bother to look it up):

[quote]Lorisco wrote:
MMG wrote:
HotCarl28 wrote:
Lorisco wrote:
orion wrote:
Lorisco wrote:

u falsely seem to give purpose to evolution

"no scientific reason for nature to purposely create gays. "

nature does nothing purposefully and i see this misconception crop up all over this thread… many posters assume some teleological reason behind evolutionary forces when there is none

I think he meant that there is no selective advantage for there to be gays and so why are they present in nature.

Yes, of course that is what I meant. Inability to not procreate would be a genetic trait that would be weeded out through natural selection, because the genetic lines of those who can procreate would continue and those who could not or would not would cease to exist.

Yet someone will say, if that is the case then why are there still gays? Because it is not genetic at all it is a social/psychological phenomenon.

[/quote]

By this logic wouldn’t this mean that sterile men and barren women should have been weeded out by evolution?

serious question

I am of course talking about people born sterile or barren. Does this happen? I assume so.

Also ignores the fact that many people are bisexual. Or some homosexuals get married and have kids as well. (social pressures, unwillingness to admit their homosexuallity etc)

If it is genetically determined then the “homosexual” genes would still have plenty of ways to stay in circulation over the generations.

Also, as someone already said(curiously as an anti argument) homos CAN procreate if coerced/persuaded to. It’s the same thing like heteros being forced to eat cock in prison, an extreme situation can lead to new perspectives here;)

So what we have here is basically a different mindset that strongly prefers to couple with the same sex -for reasons still unknown- , yet is technically more then able to fulfill it’s predetermined role.

[quote]new2training wrote:
Lorisco wrote:
MMG wrote:
HotCarl28 wrote:
Lorisco wrote:
orion wrote:
Lorisco wrote:

u falsely seem to give purpose to evolution

"no scientific reason for nature to purposely create gays. "

nature does nothing purposefully and i see this misconception crop up all over this thread… many posters assume some teleological reason behind evolutionary forces when there is none

I think he meant that there is no selective advantage for there to be gays and so why are they present in nature.

Yes, of course that is what I meant. Inability to not procreate would be a genetic trait that would be weeded out through natural selection, because the genetic lines of those who can procreate would continue and those who could not or would not would cease to exist.

Yet someone will say, if that is the case then why are there still gays? Because it is not genetic at all it is a social/psychological phenomenon.

By this logic wouldn’t this mean that sterile men and barren women should have been weeded out by evolution?
[/quote]

If everyone was sterile or infertile, yes. But there are species that don’t procreate that continue their genome through other means. However, obviously, the ability to continue the line without procreation evolved before they lost their ability to procreate our the species would have died out. (Something that DorkinSchwarzer hasn’t learned yet).

You think bisexual is genetic? What about pedophilia? Beastiality? Necrophilia?

At what point does the behaviors that people can dream up become a social/psychological issue and no longer genetic?

[quote]
If it is genetically determined then the “homosexual” genes would still have plenty of ways to stay in circulation over the generations. [/quote]

So would webbed feet. Yet, sadly, we don’t see much of that anymore these days. Why?

[quote]Lorisco wrote:

[…]So would webbed feet. Yet, sadly, we don’t see much of that anymore these days. Why?[/quote]

But we do - evolution is a fascinating thing:

:wink:
Makkun

[quote]makkun wrote:
Lorisco wrote:

[…]So would webbed feet. Yet, sadly, we don’t see much of that anymore these days. Why?

But we do - evolution is a fascinating thing:

:wink:
Makkun[/quote]

First, I was referring to all feet webbed. And second, 1 in 2,500 for two toes is not common. Wonder if those two webbed toes help them swim faster?

[quote]
BostonBarrister wrote:
wblah blah blah …
The government doesn’t discriminate at all in terms of who can become a farmer, and the government does not discriminate at all in terms of who can enter into a marriage. There is no person who is incapable of being a farmer, and there is no person who is incapable of entering into a marriage. Let me repeat that so you can comprehend: There is no person who is disallowed from entering into a marriage as marriage is defined.

CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

So, if the definition of marriage included the phrase “a man and a woman of the same race”, by your logic, no one would be disallowed from being married, since there are other members of their race in the country, thus they are allowed to marry (so long as it is within their race).

Would you be ok with that?

Remember, by your logic, no one is actually disallowed from marriage with that definition.

BostonBarrister wrote:
You left out a key part of the argument in the “blah blah blah.” No one is disallowed from holding himself out as married no matter whom his partner may be, male or female. There is no prohibition on same-sex marriage as such - what there is is a specific tax benefit assigned to the particular union of a man and a woman. Having a law assign a particular benefit based upon a particular action is what we’re discussing.

CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
Having a law assign a particular benefit based upon a particular action and, without just cause, restricting that benefit from certain members of society (discrimination), is what we’re discussing.[/quote]

No: Having the law assign a particular benefit based on a rational objective of government, and having a segment of society that chooses not to avail itself of that benefit, is what we’re discussing.

[quote]
BostonBarrister wrote:
Now, to get to how you are attempting to frame the question, race as a category for anything under the law - with the exception of something like sickle-cell anemia research grants - bothers me quite a bit, because those distinctions are not based on any rational basis.

But do you really think that race is the equivalent of gender in terms of whether one can have a rational basis for making a distinguishing judgment?

CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
I think you’re missing the forrest for the trees here. The point wasnt just about race. The point was… you’re using the justification that “Its a fair rule as long as anybody can still get married.” Because, hey, a man can always find a woman to marry, so he can still get married, just maybe not to who he chooses.

This is bad logic, because, using it, the government could impose ANY restriction on marriage it wanted (say, if you had undesirable genes… you could always find someone else with undesirable genes to marry!).

Race is just a good example because that line of logic was one of the things used to impede interracial marriage (arguing that a black man can just find a black woman). [/quote]

Let’s get this out here: Race is a poor analogy in this case because of the fact it has almost no bearing on a rational policy goal and can only be for a discriminatory purpose outside of a few obvious situations (e.g., a grant for sickle-cell anemia research limited to blacks might have a rational policy reason).

Also, let’s get to another point now. The idea that no one is disallowed to get a benefit holds in every context except for race - and this is because of the special nature of race. It’s an accepted fact that race is not a rational basis, and does not correlate with any rational bases, as a cause for differential treatment (minus a very few scenarios such as the sickle-cell anemia example above). See below for how race and gender are not the same.

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
Its simply bad logic and leads to nothing but discrimination and bigotry.[/quote]

No, it’s simply an extension of the idea that the government can use a rational reason for defining the limits of a benefit it chooses to create.

Speaking of bad logic, let me explain a little bit of logic to you here. Just because bigotry is a possible cause for a discriminatory treatment does not mean that it is a cause. In other words, you cannot look at a situation that could have been caused by bigotry and discrimination and determine simply from that fact that it was caused by discrimination.

To put it in logic terms, if you have given cause A, that will definitely result in result B, it does not mean that when you see result B, you can infer cause A. This is true even if you think that A and B often occur together. This is true even if you think A is generally present - you still need to demonstrate specific causation.

From a guide to logical fallacies:

[i]Affirming the Consequent

Definition: Any argument of the following form is invalid:
If A then B
B
Therefore, A

Examples:

(i) If I am in Calgary, then I am in Alberta. I am in Alberta, thus, I am in Calgary. (Of course, even though the premises are true, I might be in Edmonton, Alberta.)

(ii) If the mill were polluting the river then we would see an increase in fish deaths. And fish deaths have increased. Thus, the mill is polluting the river.

Proof: Show that even though the premises are true, the conclusion could be false. In general, show that B might be a consequence of something other than A. For example, the fish deaths might be caused by pesticide run-off, and not the mill.

(Barker: 69, Cedarblom and Paulsen: 24, Copi and Cohen: 241)
[/i]

Each and every time the government creates a benefit, it creates limits on who can avail himself of it, or around the circumstances that it can be obtained. Many tax deductions are phased out at certain income levels. This means that people earning greater amounts than the thresholds set cannot avail themselves of those tax benefits and are thus legally discriminated against. This could have been done because Congress is bigoted against higher-income people; or, it could have been done because there was a rational policy reason to focus the benefit on lower-income people. Another example: voting is limited to citizens 18 years of age or older, and thus younger citizens are legally discriminated against. This could be because the government is biased against 17 year olds, or it could be because there is a rational policy reason.

Note that it’s not necessary that you agree with the policy reason. Maybe the line should be drawn at 16 and not at 18. This is immaterial to whether it’s based in irrational discrimination. If you think that infants should vote, then you might consider it irrational discrimination, but arguing about line drawing concedes rationality for the point.

Note also that the policy reason does not need to hold true in each individual case in order to be a rational, valid policy reason across society generally. More to that later.

[quote]
BostonBarrister wrote:
Do you think women should be subject to the draft? Are you upset if paternity leave isn’t automatically equal to maternity leave? Do you think there should be separate men’s and women’s collegiate sports teams?

CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
It sounds like you’re putting words in my mouth. I didnt say “Everyone must be equal in everything always!”

Just because men and women play on different sports teams doesnt mean the government can discriminate for any reason it wants.[/quote]

No, your point was that race as a category was equivalent of gender as a category when it came to whether the government could have a rational basis to create a limit on a benefit. Your analogy does not hold water.

[quote]
BostonBarrister wrote:

Those are questions that need to be answered if you’re going to say it’s irrational to make distinctions on gender.

CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
In some cases, gender is a rational distinction to make (men, being generally physically stronger and more agressive in our society, make more sense to draft than women since the possible duties require greater physical strenth, and it makes sense to draft one gender as to avoid the risk of two parents both being drafted [lets not argue about that, I’m just pulling that out of the air]). In others, it is not (refusing to promote a well qualified woman because “A woman wouldnt fit in with everyone else on the board” or “Women crack under pressure”).

So, its not wrong to say that gender is an irrational distinction in this case (marriage), though it may be in others.[/quote]

If A then B does not mean if B then A. You’ve yet to refute the idea that there is a rational basis for defining marriage with respect to a union that will tend to result in children. And I’ve suggested a few different examples over the course of this thread.

BTW, I like your draft reasoning. It shows a rational basis for a gender-based legal discrimination based on society-wide familial concerns.

[quote]
BostonBarrister wrote:

But really, this question is even more basic: The issue is whether the government can rationally favor a type of union that, generally speaking, is likely to produce children.

CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
This thinking is bigoted. Yes, yes, that sounds like such an awful insult and I’m just trying to throw a bad word at you to make you look bad. Right?

A telltale sign of bigotry is using logic that “happens” to support a bigoted stance, but does not apply elsewhere. Read over this debate, its rampant:

Traditional marriage (nevermind all the ways marriage is no longer “traditional”)

Doesnt produce children (nevermind marriage of the elderly or otherwise infertile)

The government can discriminate however it pleases (while being against discrimination based on race, class, religion, etc, etc).

Sanctity of marriage (nevermind divorce)

Its ok because no one is totally disallowed from marriage (wouldnt hold water for any other discrimination)

Do you see what I mean? In all these cases, the “logic” does not apply anywhere else, but suddenly it becomes very relevant. This leads me to believe that the ulterior motive is “I am against homosexuality and support laws that favor heterosexuals over homosexuals”.[/quote]

A telltale sign of not understanding the argument is an attempt to refute a point about the rationality of a policy considered generally over society by pointing out individual cases in which it doesn’t apply.

It doesn’t matter whether a particular marriage between an individual man and an individual woman is capable of producing children; it matters whether marriages between a man and a woman will generally result in children.

The government can take policies aimed at encouraging those couples - two-gender couples whose union tends to produce children - to stay together in order to promote stable environments for children irrespective of whether marriage is “sacred.” In fact, it makes more sense for the government to take those positions when marriages seem to be under more stress than it would in a society with a divorce rate of 0%.

[quote]Majin wrote:

Nope, many are 100% brokeback. Even the some genes were identified.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=AbstractPlus&list_uids=8953572

[/quote]

You should digest your sources more thoroughly before regurgitating them on someone else, for so many many reasons.

It should be a clear sign that your argument has descended into absurdity when human-induced mutagenesis of fruit flies is used in support of the natural and exclusively homosexual behavior of higher animals.

[quote]Lorisco wrote:
orion wrote:
Lorisco wrote:
orion wrote:
Lorisco wrote:
orion wrote:
Lorisco wrote:
ZEB wrote:
pookie wrote:

It seems more likely that attraction towards other men is their true nature…

Let’s stop right here, who says that it’s their “true nature”? You? Other social liberals? Those who say that people are “born that way”, with no proof? No one can say for sure.

If a man is able to have sex with a woman and also a man I think it’s pretty safe to say that that man is a bisexual by nature. What else can you call him?

I don’t think anyone is repressing anything. What they’re doing is experiencing what they truly want, that being able to have sex with both genders. Your contention that if any of the men in question were allowed to marry another man so many years ago then they would not be having sex with another man is not valid. How do you know that they would not have been sneaking around on that man with another woman? Since the person is obviously able to have sex with both (bisexual).

Bisexual “true nature”? How can anything different from a procreative model (man & woman) be “true nature” as no other biological mating behavior supports survival of the species?

So unless nature is trying to make this person’s genetic line, through a genetic defect, go extent, it is not “true nature”.

So we are then left with it being a choice and changeable or being a genetic defect.

Where you go wrong is expecting nature to work as you think it does or should and calling unnatural what works differently instead of respecting nature as it actually works and calling that natural.

Riiight! Trying to make it personal again Orion and ignoring the facts?

Show me where a human gene line can be carried on in nature without male/female procreation. But since it can’t occur in nature you have no valid point.

I suggest you read up on Darwin’s natural selection.

I suggest you take into account that biology has evolved (snicker…) since Darwin.

Bees do not procreate either and yet they work and sacrifice themselves for the hive.

Why?

Because a large enough part of their genome gets passed on through their queen or the next queen to make it worth it for their genes to make thousands of not procreating bees to support one that does.

How big of a leap is it to believe that the occasional non procreating human plays a similar role in human societies?

Since homosexuality IS there must be a reason for its existence.

Either the debil made it or nature needs it.

Sounds like you need a course in evolutionary science. The process of natural selection is continual and requires genetic variation. Some of this variation allows the species to function better in a changing environment, and other variation does not. That is why there were a lot of species that are now extinct. So the fact that an abnormality is created in nature does not mean it is functional. And given that humans do not function collectively in terms of procreation, that fact alone, based on the current environment, would make homosexuality a non-functional variation.

But the fact is that all this is not based on biology by psychology. In other words, there is no physical reason gays cannot mate with the opposite sex and procreate. They just refuse to. That is what makes it so difficult to determine if it is nature of individual choice. Either way it still comes back to a non-functional genetic variance or an individual choice.

First of all homosexuality is far, far, far to common to be a mutation. Or to but it another way, if you want to call it a mutation fine, but since nature allows it surprisingly often that makes it definitely a functional genetic variance.

We are back to square one:

You assume nature should work a certain way and call it unnatural when nature works differently.

Yet nature works as it works and it is much more likely that you (or anybody else) simply do not understand how it works yet.

In other words what is more likely, that reality is wrong or your picture of reality?

If you can come up with a method in nature that would currently allow humans to continue the species without having male-female relations, then you would have a point. But we both know that that does not exist.

Also, it is unlikely that genetics would change before the environment. In other words, the theory is that environmental change occurs and as a result genetic changes occurs to allow the human to survive in the new environment. This doesn’t occur the other way around.

So for your idea to hold water there would have to be some environmental reason that humans could not procreate in the current manner, i.e. lack of females to bread with males, etc. But without this kind of scenario there is currently no scientific reason for nature to purposely create gays.

Is it possible that there is a reason that we are not aware of? Sure, it is possible. But given that there is currently no breading issue, it is not likely.

[/quote]

I am sorry but your understanding of the theory of evolution is lacking some basic ideas, like sexual selection, genes that create behavior to alter the environment to better suit the gene spreading organisms and so on.

A peacocks feathers for example serves no purpose, in fact it is a handicap for the peacock, but it pleases the peahens eyes. That is why the ultrafit peacocks that still sport impressive feathers after being hunted and sick and a constant struggle get all the girls.

Not only a good example for sexual selection but also for a trait that serves no apparent purpose prima facie and yet it is of enormous importance.

Anyway, my point is , and it still stands, that a certain percentage of homosexuals in the extended family could have survival benefits, even for the genes of the homosexuals themselves.

Like the worker bees that never procreate themselves but spread their genes by helping the queen spreading her genes.

All I am suggesting is that it is perfectly possible that homosexuals play a similar role though in much smaller and ever changing numbers.

Where I am saying that nature does not waste resources, so there must be a reason for homosexuals, you insist that around 3%-5% are born without a purpose.

This is impossible, the genetic traits that allow for homosexuality would be wiped out.

But they arent´t.

[quote]MMG wrote:
HotCarl28 wrote:
Lorisco wrote:
orion wrote:
Lorisco wrote:

u falsely seem to give purpose to evolution

"no scientific reason for nature to purposely create gays. "

nature does nothing purposefully and i see this misconception crop up all over this thread… many posters assume some teleological reason behind evolutionary forces when there is none

I think he meant that there is no selective advantage for there to be gays and so why are they present in nature.
[/quote]

Whereas the real question would be, IF they ARE present on nature , WHAT IS THEIR SELECTIVE ADVANTAGE?

That there is one is really undebatable, nature has already answered that question by making so many.