What's new
By:

So gay!!!

Beantown said:
That article doesnt change anything. There are plenty of theories out there on homosexuality. But none of them change the fact that homosexuals dont reproduce or will they ever partake in the continuation of human evolution. Unless they interact in heterosexaul relations. So plain and simple homosexuals have to rely on heterosexuals for the continuation of our species.

Do a little science experiment. Have 100 homosexuals live on a island and go back and check on them in 80 years. Then we can see how their community is blossoming.
Click to expand...

I don't think you read the article. The article, which cites people far better at biology than you or I, does actually provide sound reasoning as to why homosexuals exist due to evolution.

I'll distill the entire article for you even more: evolution caused homosexuality.

You discount the article because you don't agree with the "theory" that the citations (to say nothing about the authors) therein put forth. Let me ask you this: how many biology degrees do you have? How many co-authored, peer-reviewed articles on evolution do you have? If you don't mind, I'll go ahead and discount your hypothesis (to call it a theory is a slap in the face to those involved in actual science) a few notches below the article's theory.
 
YB85 said:
True. Put 100 men and women on an island and the species is going to continue. You claim this proves your point that homosexuality has no biological or evolutionary importance. I went to the other extreme, an "opposite", so to speak. Put 100 heterosexuals of the same gender on the island. We know that not children could be created, but do you think that all of those on the island would not take part in some physical contact with members of the same sex, despite being heterosexual? Me neither. Does this prove anything? No. Neither did your example.
Click to expand...

You're using gender as an example, I was using sexual preference to show mine. Again you dont make any sense.
 
Beantown said:
Men and women. The only way that island isnt basically wiped out is if they went against there homosexual feelings and forced themselves to engage in heterosexual relations. Which proves my point that homosexual relations have no biolgocal or evolutionary importance.

Another example would be this:

-If the whole world were homosexual we are literally talking about the end of the world. Within about 100 years our species would not exist.
Click to expand...

Which proves my point that homosexual relations have no biolgocal or evolutionary importance.
Click to expand...

IT DOES NO SUCH THING.

Dear Groundbeantownhog

We have been over this before. There is more to survival of the species than merely procreating. It is called SURVIVAL because that is a very important component. If none of the off-spring survive to reach maturity, it doesn't matter how many offspring there are, the species will still die out.

You can't prove that homosexual relationships in the animal kingdom might never play a role in the overall survival of the offspring. In fact, there is scientific evidence, in humans as well as other animals, that homosexual relationships do play an important role to help the species survive.

Yes, you are correct in saying that homosexual relationships do not result in procreation. However, as most reasonable people understand, survival of a species goes beyond that first step. In this thread, I cited a lengthy article from the NY Times, that itself cited numerous scientific studies detailing important homosexual relationships in the animal kingdom - relationships that provided nurturing to help the offspring survive, relationships that provided stability to the overall population to help the offspring survive, and relationships than conferred positive benefits on the individuals within the species.

In threads on the former board, I cited numerous studies of both humans and others that determined that homosexual relationships did indeed contribute positive benefits to the population. Your continuing refusal to acknowledge these studies is mind-boggling.
 
But is it REALLY mind-boggling, 'Evil? Think about who you're talking to and ask yourself again.

I officially love this thread, btw.
 
Moe, all the theories you throw out there doesnt change the fact that homosexuals do not participate in evolution. In all species the higher percentage of the population that is invovled in procreation the better off that species is because of the greater amount of genetic diversity. Homosexuals are increasing which will result in less genetic diversity in humans.
 
Beantown said:
You're using gender as an example, I was using sexual preference to show mine. Again you dont make any sense.
Click to expand...

Sometimes, there comes a point where I say to myself, "What the **** are you doing?"

That was said about five pages ago, but I didn't listen. Some doors will never open.
 
Moe go talk to evolutionist and biologist. I have had many discussions with handfulls of them about this topic. No matter how you dice it homosexuality is as evolutionary weak as it gets and they do not participate in genetic diverity or continuing our species evolutionary path. Not to mention the ample of evidence that supports homosexuality being caused by environmental factors as well as alot of cases being gender disorders.
 
YB85 said:
Sometimes, there comes a point where I say to myself, "What the **** are you doing?"
That was said about five pages ago, but I didn't listen. Some doors will never open.
Click to expand...

Im sure its frustrating for you, but you cant change the fact that homosexuals dont participate in human evolution or genetic diversity.
 
I guess I'll repost and see if bean takes the bait this time:

"I don't think you read the article. The article, which cites people far better at biology than you or I, does actually provide sound reasoning as to why homosexuals exist due to evolution.

I'll distill the entire article for you even more: evolution caused homosexuality.

You discount the article because you don't agree with the "theory" that the citations (to say nothing about the authors) therein put forth. Let me ask you this: how many biology degrees do you have? How many co-authored, peer-reviewed articles on evolution do you have? If you don't mind, I'll go ahead and discount your hypothesis (to call it a theory is a slap in the face to those involved in actual science) a few notches below the article's theory. "
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top