Sponsored Links
D
daneski88
It's highly relevant. On the one hand as previously commented by yours truly on this very thread, it marks the end of procreation and thus the genetic line where a homosexual strain occurs. Also people who are born with congenital defects are less likely to have a long life expectancy and procreate accordingly - not saying that it doesn't ever happen, nor am I commenting on the morality of it
Indeed, one could also argue that even the case of "nurture" has a bearing of survival - if you were a jew in europe 70 years ago, you had a much smaller chance of surviving. Similar trends of tribal (and even social classing) culling have occurred before and since on varying degrees of scale. Add to that religious "warfare".
Thus Darwinism applies through natural, political and social means.
Just a thought - I may be wrong
You are thinking (1) that homosexuality is genetically transmitted. That is an interesting possibility, but not proven (2) that homosexuals do not procreate. This is definitely wrong. Much more so when it is frowned on, many homsexual men and women get married and have children, wanting to conform, or not having worked out what they most want.
D
daneski88
Well sort of. Momentarily discounting (2), homosexuals would not procreate if they followed their natural tendencies at the outset, which seems to indicate that there's something in their makeup that's not meant to continue. Whether there is a "gay" gene that gets passed down is indeed not proven. But without wishing to be contentious it is entirely possible (and it happens regularly) that a seemingly "normal" viable heterosexual couple generate a non-viable handicapped offspring. Is the same not possible for this same couple to produce a homosexual offspring who is not "meant" to continue this particular genetic line for one reason or another?
Somehow, I expect to be berated heavily for this, more for the use of unfortunate language than the actual concept. I hate the use of the word "normal" but it's meant in a statistical "most common" rather than a moral judgement manner.
Sponsored Links
Is not part of the problem that you are overlooking the fact that being gay does not imply that you are unable to procreate.
A gay man can have fruitful sex with a female, he just wouldn't necessarily enjoy it.
You also fail to account for bisexuality etc.
It is not necessary for all members of a genus to procreate to further it.
I for one consider myself to be straight but do not have any urge to make smaller versions of myself. i doubt that I will ever "become" gay but i cannot rule out the possibility. I have sex for pleasure not to make babies. I am not aware of any other groups in nature that masturb@te, have oral sex, intentional an@l etc. We understand the function of sex but choose to ignore it.
Personally I can see no evidence for there being a gay gene, nor can I see a gene that makes some people have happier dispositions than others. If a man reaches the age of 50, leaves the wife and kids and says that deep down he always knew that (from childhood) he was gay then I am willing to accept that at face value.
Being born one way or another might be the result of a million and one factors- including environmental factors rather than genes. It doesn't follow that gay people have gay kids.
As I said earlier I am not convinced that the Darwinian model applies to modern man, we are able to change our environment to mitigate the need to physically adapt to it. We have moved past subsistence living and are able to provide for members that would have been unable to fend for themselves. It is not only the fittest that survive and we have some understanding of who genes work and are therefore able to influence certain outcomes.
Even terms such as nature are perhaps outdated with the antithesis being manmade. Afterall, are we not of nature and does it not therefore follow that anything manmade is thus natural by definition?
A gay man can have fruitful sex with a female, he just wouldn't necessarily enjoy it.
You also fail to account for bisexuality etc.
It is not necessary for all members of a genus to procreate to further it.
I for one consider myself to be straight but do not have any urge to make smaller versions of myself. i doubt that I will ever "become" gay but i cannot rule out the possibility. I have sex for pleasure not to make babies. I am not aware of any other groups in nature that masturb@te, have oral sex, intentional an@l etc. We understand the function of sex but choose to ignore it.
Personally I can see no evidence for there being a gay gene, nor can I see a gene that makes some people have happier dispositions than others. If a man reaches the age of 50, leaves the wife and kids and says that deep down he always knew that (from childhood) he was gay then I am willing to accept that at face value.
Being born one way or another might be the result of a million and one factors- including environmental factors rather than genes. It doesn't follow that gay people have gay kids.
As I said earlier I am not convinced that the Darwinian model applies to modern man, we are able to change our environment to mitigate the need to physically adapt to it. We have moved past subsistence living and are able to provide for members that would have been unable to fend for themselves. It is not only the fittest that survive and we have some understanding of who genes work and are therefore able to influence certain outcomes.
Even terms such as nature are perhaps outdated with the antithesis being manmade. Afterall, are we not of nature and does it not therefore follow that anything manmade is thus natural by definition?
D
daneski88
No. What I am saying is that if you are gay and only engage in homosexual acts then you will not procreate.
I'm not saying he won't actually procreate, but that to do so is not within his natural instinct
I've not been asked about it
I refer to a specific strain wihin that genus that is not "meant" to continue
Whether this is permanent or not is of no relevance. At this particular moment in time, you are not meant to reproduce.
I'm not saying there is a "gay" gene. What I am saying is that whatever the characteristics of this specific genetic strain, it is designed to no longer continue.
I've responded to this point already, and respectfully disagree with you completely. It's not just about survival of the fittest, but also about the destruction of the weakest, and this comes aobut through physical, social and political means. The latter two facets are linked to the first.
Isn't that a matter of semantics. How do you define weaker or fitter outside the rest of the animal world?
Referring back to your point about the jews circa 1930/1940. The Russians lost more members than the Germans yet they were victors. The russia genepool was more heavily depleted than the german's so does this mean that they were the weaker?
Sorry if the example does not fit in with the point that you were trying to make about the Jews but I didn't quite understand it. As far as I am concerned my example is flawed because we are talking about man made constructs, ie the state but you said that darwinism continues thru politics etc.
D
daneski88
Opps, the point I was making about the jews in the 1930's and 40's is that being born into a particular social or in this case religious group has a bearing on the likelihood of long term survival of that lineage. This is an example of how one's survival or destruction had been detemined not through physical traits, but through social/political ones.
As for your point about casualties on the eastern front, although more Russians were killed than Germans, this doesn't take into account the proportion of population destruction, nor other factors such as what was happening at the other theatres of war.
As for your point about casualties on the eastern front, although more Russians were killed than Germans, this doesn't take into account the proportion of population destruction, nor other factors such as what was happening at the other theatres of war.
Still finding it difficult to argue with or against you as I don't understand the point you are making- not trying to be obtuse.
I am happy to accept that coal miners have a shorter life span than doctors but I don't see how this is darwinism in practice... as I said I don't quite get the gist of your analysis
Horses, dogs, kangaroos and chimps masturb@te. I expect lots of other animals do too.
H
holmslaw
I think you're confused when a gambler refers to losing a bet on a horse race because of that w*****, he's referring to the jockey not the horse.
How can you have a jodrell wearing horseshoes?
D
daneski88
All I'm trying to get at is that Darwinism doesn't only apply to "natural" variations like having 6 fingers. The chances of your survival depends on the random group of people you are born into. Since medicine and social care tends to help naturally non-viable humans to survive, other ways of weeding out the weak from the strong apply.
your knowledge of horses is not as great as mine.
I think you're confused when a gambler refers to losing a bet on a horse race because of that w*****, he's referring to the jockey not the horse.
How can you have a jodrell wearing horseshoes?
they jiggle about so it rubs on their belly.
it is considered a problem especially with colts and racing stallions which are full of energy and have nothing to do.
equine suppliers sell things called "purity rings" to discourage them. They are not fitted on the finger.
Sponsored Links
