The problem is that I used the word "propagate" in a fashion consistent with its dictionary definition, i.e., to engage in sexual reproduction.
You then replied that homosexual activity might help the species as a whole survive. Which is a non-sequitur, regardless of whether your statement was factually correct.
I was objecting to the change of subject.
Which is why it is so ironic that you use the word "responsive" to chide me.
For the nonce, do you have any specific evidence that homosexual behaviour does in fact help the breeding population? Peer-reviewed, well-designed studies are welcome.
Cheers!
And my point was, and continues to be, that reproduction isn't the only way to get survival advantage from sexual behavior.
You then replied that homosexual activity might help the species as a whole survive.
I did not. I suggested that homosexual behavior can be a survival trait in individuals of significant impact.
Which is a non-sequitur, regardless of whether your statement was factually correct.
No, your insistance that this argument somehow hinges on the definition of "propagate" is the non-sequitur.
I was objecting to the change of subject.
Than perhaps you shouldn't be so eager to do it.
For the nonce, do you have any specific evidence that homosexual behaviour does in fact help the breeding population? Peer-reviewed, well-designed studies are welcome.
Well, that would, I suppose, be appropriate, if it weren't so painfully obvious. Do you think maybe that presenting behavior in beta male baboons keeps them alive? Do you think staying alive might possibly have an impact on your reproductive chances? Do you have a theory as to how worker ants, with no reproductive capacity whatsoever, could have possibly come into existence--given your theory that only sex that produces offspring has a survival advantage? It's called Red Queen Theory, if you want to google it up.