Homosexuality and Evo, Creo, and ID

Oh far from "lots" of problems, there are NO problems with my statement: you were talking about different reproductive methods, and homosexuals do not reproduce, period.

With other homosexuals of the same sex - obviously not.Through surrogacy, time spent (for whatever reason) in heterosexual relationships, communal relationships, bisexuality - sure they do.

Really?

Yeah, really. Only by heterosexual sex can they reproduce, not AS homosexuals. As you well know. They are NOT like asexually reproducing animals. Duh.

So, Faith, you're not going to comment on Intersexual people, I take it?

but not AS homosexuals, which is what Pressie's original false analogy implied. LEASE follow the argument.

Actually, some people do reproduce AS homosexuals. You do know that some homosexual people do have children?Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.

Oh, I am following the argument, but I'm not making the mistake which you're making in confusing homosexuality with sexual acts.Homosexuality is sexual attraction towards your own sex. That is what we don't have a choice in - our sexual attraction to someone.Where we do have a choice is in whether or not we perform a sexual act. I can be sexually attracted to someone and choose not to do something about it (being the faithful sort that I am). Equally, I can choose to do something sexual with someone I'm not attracted to. That choice will not affect in the slightest my sexuality - the people to whom I'm attracted.Homosexual people have throughout history had heterosexual sex - often to avoid persecution, sometimes to have children. But throughout it all, they remain homosexual and attracted to their own sex. We can all choose to perform or not perform a sexual act - none of us can choose our sexual orientation.Consequently, it is possible to reproduce as a homosexual - through surrogacy, or the choice to have heterosexual sex. You still stay homosexual.

This one was very, very funny Actually, some species can reproduce by themselves (growing penises from their cell walls and impregnate themselves), to having sex with other cells (growing penises from their cell walls and impregnate other cells). They don't have fixed sexes.We are decendents of those cells.Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.

What makes you think homosexuality does not fit into evolution? What does "fit into evolution mean"? Why should it? You do know about dominate vs recessive genes, yes?And what makes you think homosexuality is solely a genetic effect? Do you know about epigenetics? The brain is a powerful and complex organ that we are woefully unable to understand. The genetic and epigenetic makeup, the structure and biochemistry, are beyond our present state of knowledge.But I will reiterate what has been said here. If homosexuality really is a choice that can be consciously made then you could make that same choice. If you're like me the very thought is ... well ... icky, disgusting. I cannot make that "choice" because I do not have that choice.If I don't have that choice, and if deep down you find that you do not really have that choice, then what makes you think anyone else does? Your religiously motivated, biased and bigoted web sites? Probably not the best sources for researching reality.Let's establish this one fact. Sexual orientation, from hetero through homo and every shade in between, is not by conscious choice. The orientation is the result of genetics, epigenetics, the structure and biochemistry of the body and brain. You have no choice in selecting your own sexual orientation and you have no choice in accepting the fact that neither does anybody else.I'll leave the "why" via evolution to those more studied than I.

Sigh. Homosexual sex does not reproduce. You can watch cells grow penises and reproduce all day long and that isn't going to make sodomy produce a child.

Neither does playing backgammon. Still like it though.On a personal note, I have estimate that sometime in the next couple of weeks, don't know exactly when, is an anniversary of sorts for me. Exactly two decades will have passed since the last time I had sex for the purpose of a producing a child. I don't consider any of the times after that my wife an I have indulged using contraception to be any kind of sinful episodes, but I suppose some people might. I really don't care what those people think. I don't think my practices are going to somehow stop evolution or cause the human race to die out either.I think you can see why your argument might not be all that persuasive to some.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Can you tell me when you decided to be heterosexual? Or did you always know? Why? Why would you expect the genetic traits that govern attraction should always be aligned with the genetic traits for reproduction apparatus during the process of reproduction? Especially when there are several gene sites that could be involved?You do realize that there are many animals with homosexual individuals along with heterosexuals (and that they are not persecuted by their fellow beings)?Bonobos (pygmy chimps) are perhaps the best known. If it is a biological process that occurs during fetal development due to hormones then this is logically going to be a common recurring result, and still not a choice on the part of the individual. Why?If the biological conditions that produce the hormones affecting the fetal development are commonly replicated there should be no reason for results to change. Why?Your purported choice to be heterosexual should also not be protected in that case, logically speaking, and thus laws should treat all people equally regardless of sexual orientation.The scientific implications are that we don't know yet all the causes or reasons, but studies have shown than one cannot decide to be other than what they are (see Vimsey above and I have had similar experience). Whether it is strictly genetic, strictly hormone\environment\developmental or a combination is really irrelevant: the people are still fully human beings and members of the species Homo sapiens sapiens. Scientifically there is no more difference than there is between any two individuals.The lawful implications are what we as society decide to do in making laws, and whether we want those laws to be equitable and just in their treatment of individuals or we want to be oppressive and discriminatory.And in a country where we purportedly value independence, liberty, justice and equality, it seems to me logical that there should be no restriction on how people want to behave in private between consenting adults.As far as laws go, I would propose that these guidelines should apply:First do no harm or through inaction cause harm to occur
Second do unto others as you would have them do unto youFinally I note that the preamble to the constitution states: We have become more perfect with time as we have increased the freedom and liberty of others, more just in our laws treating people as equals, but there is still room to grow and become even more perfect still.The constitution doesn't list exceptions. It gives no preference to any religious beliefs or biased beliefs.

I would recommend you read the links I provided in my original message, here: Message 9Aside from the fact that homosexuality does not, in an of itself, stop anyone from reproducing, unless there is something wrong with their sexual organs, the point being made in those studies is that homosexuality has been observed in nature in animals that function in social groups. Which means that it provides a selective advantage.

THE CONTEXT OF MY REMARKS WAS PRESSIE'S RIDICULOUS COMPARISON WITH ASEXUALLY REPRODUCING CREATURES AS IF THAT SOMEHOW LEGITIMIZES HUMAN HOMOSEXUALITY. THE OBVIOUS ANSWER IS THAT HUMAN HOMOSEXUAL SEX DOES NOT REPRODUCE. THAT'S THE ONLY CONTEXT IN WHICH I MADE MY COMMENT.