[Clydey]

Originally Posted by RagingLamb

I said if it was "evolutionarily inferior" it would have ceased to exist. Not if it was genetic.

No, that is not necessarily true. Under no circumstances can you guarantee the extinction of homosexuality unless all we had were same sex couples who refused to have sex with anything but their own gender. Homosexuals can still reproduce and they do still reproduce.

Originally Posted by RagingLamb

Yes, if anything, it seems like it's triggered by environmental events. Evolution can only work on heritable traits. So it's not accurate to call homosexuals "inferior from an evolutionary perspective", since evolution does not act on homosexuality.

It has nothing to do with passing on a homosexual gene. It has to do with the likelihood that homosexuals will procreate.

Originally Posted by RagingLamb

You don't know that for sure. But let's assume that homosexuals are in fact less likely to pass on their genes. This will do absolutely nothing to homosexuality itself. And I'm not sure how it really matters how much of their genes they will pass on.

Yes, I do know that for a fact. You do know that same-sex couples can't conceive naturally, right?

Heterosexual couples can and do. For a homosexual to reproduce, they would have to have intercourse with the opposite sex. I can't believe I actually have to explain this.

It is much, much more likely that homosexuals will not pass on their genes. How on earth can you argue otherwise?

You just aren't getting it. This is about what best serves the species, not about passing on certain heritable traits.

[Arkulari]

Originally Posted by raginglamb

^males could donate to sperm banks.

I know, but it's not the same, 'cuz they cannot choose who will get their sperm
while women can choose whose sperm they want

Originally Posted by Snoo Foo

there are also egg donors and gestational surrogates so really $$$ is the only thing keeping a gay man from passing his own genes on to his child.

of course, but my point is that males have to go and find all that, while women just need to look at a catalogue and choose what they want


I haven't met the first son/daughter of a homosexual couple that is a homosexual as well, it isn't genetically transferred nor goes in the environment

is simply something in the genes of every individual that makes them get their sexual orientation

[Snoo Foo]

Originally Posted by Clydey

Heterosexual couples can and do. For a homosexual to reproduce, they would have to have intercourse with the opposite sex. I can't believe I actually have to explain this.

OK, I'm starting to understand. In my country, where I live, we have stuff like in vitro fertilization and all kinds of stuff whereby people - homosexual, heterosexual, asexual, you name it - can reproduce without having intercourse with anyone. It happens all the time, every day, hundreds or thousands of times over. I can't believe I actually have to explain this.

[Clydey]

Originally Posted by Snoo Foo

how the hell do wisdom teeth show that evolution isn't perfect? wisdom teeth are an example of how amazing evolution is.



yeah, and humanity will survive with homosexuals.

Yes, but humanity would not survive without heterosexuals. It would survive without homosexuals. It is a fact that heterosexuality is better for the species. Again, that is not me saying that homosexuality is wrong.

And wisdom teeth are redundant. If anything, they do more harm than good. We no longer need them, yet we still have them. Evolution is astounding. It isn't perfect.

[Clydey]

Originally Posted by Snoo Foo

OK, I'm starting to understand. In my country, where I live, we have stuff like in vitro fertilization and all kinds of stuff whereby people - homosexual, heterosexual, asexual, you name it - can reproduce without having intercourse with anyone. It happens all the time, every day, hundreds or thousands of times over. I can't believe I actually have to explain this.

That is not nature, however. Evolution deals with natural selection. We are talking about evolution, a natural phenomenon. From a purely evolutionary perspective, where we do not take technology into account, heterosexuality is more desirable.

[Snoo Foo]

Originally Posted by MrsFedex

I know, but it's not the same, 'cuz they cannot choose who will get their sperm
while women can choose whose sperm they want

In my country, we have such things as egg donors, and the men can choose where to put their sperm just as easily as women can choose whose sperm they get.

[wildegirl05]

clydey, you're making assumptions that then prove your "case".

you're assuming sexuality falls into two categories - homo and hetero. it could be fluid continuum.

you're assuming that homosexuals are unlikely to have sex merely to reproduce, if they have the urge to recreate - do you have stats to back this up? i'm guessing all you're making is the very simplistic argument that two members of the same gender having sex together cannot produce offspring. that's about all the "fact" there is. from there to making claims about evolution/procreation and sexuality is just giant leaps of "what ifs" and suspending the use of technology and as has been pointed out already - completely irrelevant and pointless to anything related to gay rights.

you're also assuming that heterosexuals and procreation are somehow givens. again, outside of the tab a/slot b sorta basic argument, it just ignores information on choices/ability/a host of socio-economic factors - all of which have huge impacts on procreation and "serving" the human species.

[Snoo Foo]

From a purely evolutionary perspective, where we do not take technology into account, wisdom teeth are more desirable.

[Arkulari]

Originally Posted by Snoo Foo

In my country, we have such things as egg donors, and the men can choose where to put their sperm just as easily as women can choose whose sperm they get.

yeah, but then, they have to find who can carry those
I have a male gay friend who wanted to get his own biological child and besides choosing eggs, he had to choose the surrogate, pay her, pay for the insemination, all their necessities, etc
it's way more difficult and expensive for a male to do that, besides it's something very hard to ask from a female friend, pregnancy and childbirth is not something easy, unlike coming in a cup

[wildegirl05]

Originally Posted by Clydey

That is not nature, however. Evolution deals with natural selection. We are talking about evolution, a natural phenomenon. From a purely evolutionary perspective, where we do not take technology into account, heterosexuality is more desirable.

nope, from a purely evolutionary standpoint - a viable sperm fertilizing an available egg is desirable. that's it. sexuality is only one aspect of procreation, not all of it.

[Clydey]

Originally Posted by wildegirl05

clydey, you're making assumptions that then prove your "case".

you're assuming sexuality falls into two categories - homo and hetero. it could be fluid continuum.

you're assuming that homosexuals are unlikely to have sex merely to reproduce, if they have the urge to recreate - do you have stats to back this up? i'm guessing all you're making is the very simplistic argument that two members of the same gender having sex together cannot produce offspring. that's about all the "fact" there is. from there to making claims about evolution/procreation and sexuality is just giant leaps of "what ifs" and suspending the use of technology and as has been pointed out already - completely irrelevant and pointless to anything related to gay rights.

you're also assuming that heterosexuals and procreation are somehow givens. again, outside of the tab a/slot b sorta basic argument, it just ignores information on choices/ability/a host of socio-economic factors - all of which have huge impacts on procreation and "serving" the human species.

I'm sure many do have the desire to reproduce. It's a fact that they do not reproduce as often as heterosexuals though. Asking for evidence to back that statement is ridiculous. It is common sense.

There are ways for homosexuals to pass on their genes, such as a surrogate pregnancy or artificial insemination. However, these are not as convenient as a traditional relationship. Nowhere near as convenient, in fact.

[wildegirl05]

Originally Posted by MrsFedex

yeah, but then, they have to find who can carry those
I have a male gay friend who wanted to get his own biological child and besides choosing eggs, he had to choose the surrogate, pay her, pay for the insemination, all their necessities, etc
it's way more difficult and expensive for a male to do that, besides it's something very hard to ask from a female friend, pregnancy and childbirth is not something easy, unlike coming in a cup

there is surrogate outsourcing.

[wildegirl05]

Originally Posted by Clydey

I'm sure many do have the desire to reproduce. It's a fact that they do not reproduce as often as heterosexuals though. Asking for evidence to back that statement is ridiculous. It is common sense.

There are ways for homosexuals to pass on their genes, such as a surrogate pregnancy or artificial insemination. However, these are not as convenient as a traditional relationship. Nowhere near as convenient, in fact.

it is not ridiculous in the least. do you know if homosexual men are less likely to contribute their sperm to a sperm bank, for instance? or that lesbian women are less likely to want to carry a child? i don't know the stats but i certainly wouldn't consider those scenarios ridiculous.

[Clydey]

Originally Posted by wildegirl05

nope, from a purely evolutionary standpoint - a viable sperm fertilizing an available egg is desirable. that's it. sexuality is only one aspect of procreation, not all of it.

Yes, but the natural desire to be with someone of the opposite sex more readily lends itself to reproduction.

I'm not disputing that homosexuals can and do pass on their genes. They simply do not do it with the same frequency. Therefore, it is less desirable from an evolutionary viewpoint.

[RagingLamb]

Originally Posted by Clydey

This is about what best serves the species, not about passing on certain heritable traits.

are you saying the species would be better served if there was no homosexuality?