Posted on 07/24/2015 6:32:58 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
Well ewwwwwww
Not entirely. Say a couple...a quaint old concept...has four offspring. One homosexual offspring and one that dies in infancy do not reproduce. The two remaining offspring do. All four offspring were variations of two people's DNA. The survivors have a great deal of DNA in common with the non-reproducers, and pass it along.
Each of us is composed, genetically, of an eighth of each of our great-grandparents DNA, a quarter of each of our grandparents. A first cousin shares one eighth of our DNA.
Sorry. I went for the joke without thinking about ladies being present. :(
All true, but to not reproduce by sexual means is to be condemned by mathematical outcomes as defective programming. The fit reproduce and dominate the pool.
Also, reproduction halves our genetic content in each generation where it successfully occurs, barring incestuous relations. Each of your great grandchildren would carry the same amount of your DNA as a first cousin does. DNA just uses us as a vehicle.
Most of the men in prison and in the old sailing ships at sea who had sex with other men were forcing their will on weaker men/boys in the absence of women. In the ancient world, this was the normal way. Unwanted children were regularly exposed in the streets and if they survived, they were enslaved or went wild. Many of them became prostitutes since the average Roman only wanted to satisfy his lust with whatever object was available. Families and marriage regularized this lust and channeled it toward reproduction. What distinguishes modern homosexuality is how organized it is, so that its members are able to create a parody of the family and to convince a large number of people that the arrangement has some social value.
Except DNA is not as “fixed” as all that. There may be some informational drift iin our DNa during out lifetime owing to our experience.
Scientifically, it may just be an environmental reaction to any local under-population (**IF** you consider masturbation to be single-sex) or over-population event...say, sticking a straight man into a crowded prison filled only with men for 30 years.
And it was a reproductive strategy that worked wonderfully. We populated the planet. Civilization takes some of the bumps out of the road. Homosexuals can contribute to civilization; Michaelangelo certainly did.
What distinguishes modern homosexuality is how organized it is, so that its members are able to create a parody of the family and to convince a large number of people that the arrangement has some social value.
To what end? I don't think it's a conspiracy.
And humanity is not the end-all of DNA’s purpose. Solitary carnivores, herd animals, invertebrates of innumerable stripes have different strategies that work so long as their environments allow them to adapt, if necessary. Genetic drift also plays a huge role; as large as natural selection, I would say.
One look at Bill Nye and one knows, he too is a freak.
These are forest chimps who move from tree to tree foraging without a worry. Chimps of the Savannah are completely different with precisely defined male roles which must protect the few water spot communities from predators.
Bill Nye does not understand at all “evolution” and its complexity into man.
he is just an idiot trying to fit his rational for sin to a science. These people are quack scientists and extremely subjective.
They are pulling a fast one with this comparison.
What we see in animals is homosexual *behavior*. They may do stuff that looks on the surface homosexual. But note what animals don’t do—they don’t go off and pair-bond in the wild, with another male, and continue to “mate” exclusively with males for life. THAT is the apples-to-apples comparison with what people are claiming for humans.
The media gushes “gay penguins”, but then it turns out those penguins later find females and mate normally and raise a brood. That part never gets reported.
Put this paradox to your friends who bring this up:
If homosexuality is an orientation, then you have to admit it does not occur among animals.
If it’s a behavior like it is in animals, then you have to admit that it can be changed.
I was joking. don’t men love women to feign offense over shocking things?Isn’t that why men shock women, to see the look on our faces? LOL. All you guys are cute. I wouldn’t lurk and post on FR if guys grossed me out.
Bye is an actor, not by any means a “scientist”. Now he’s a certified d@bag.
Also, if the animal kingdom is your guide for morality, then why not do everything that animals do?
...
Good question, but to be fair, Nye wasn’t asked to explain it from a moral point of view.
Any kind of environmental factor is an ‘after-the-fact’ event that genetic programming does not anticipate. This seems to be the current rebuttal for the pro-gay and evolutionary crowd. Some tout the Gaia hypothesis as being the greater wisdom of the whole endorsing homosexual behavior as proper now that we are supposedly in environmental crisis.
I call B as in B and S as in S.
If this was a gene that is switched on due to environmental problems or population why have we not seen it in worse situations at times before? Of course, the rejoinder would be that society kept this in the closet and only now are we able to see the natural expression of nature's methods. Well, that would be fine and tidy except that it still would be nature's way of killing off population to bring things back into stasis.
I do believe that environment plays a factor but only to the extent that emotional and familial cues or actual events mold future behavior. The data I have seen indicates massive issues and trauma all across the spectrum of deviant sexuality. I do pity those trapped in what seems to be a predisposition but I do not buy that any more than I buy the disease theory of drug addiction. I believe it is a moral thing. Always has been and always will be.
I was joking. don’t men love women to feign offense over shocking things?Isn’t that why men shock women, to see the look on our faces? LOL. All you guys are cute. I wouldn’t lurk and post on FR if guys grossed me out.
It was also a very brutal world, one where slavery was accepted as part of the scheme of things, and the Romans kept order by crucifying a thousand men at a time on the cross, and the Athenians lived it up in the gymnasium with their squeezes while their wives lived like drudges, and babies were thrown out like garbage. Civilization of itself, and I think you mean technology, does not make human beings better. The cotton gin certainly did not improve the lives of black slaves. The girls who worked in the textile factories of New England were not better off than they were back on the farm, even though they were materially, no worse off.
To what end? To deny the contribution that Christianity has made to Western society, to deny that Christianity morality improves on nature more than a morality based on self-indulgence. To have the law say that love and lust are one and the same thing.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.