A liberal contradiction? If not, please explain.

[Dave...]

Drew wrote:

Who knows. But it certainly could be the case that homosexuals are born as such and pedophiles are not. We cannot tell nature how it is to behave - we have to let it tell us what is actually the case.

But it isn't nature telling us that one sexual preferance is genetic, and one is not. It's an idiology saying this, and that idiology provided nothing to explain this contradiction other than that's what they want it to be. I'm surprised, coming from you, Drew, who must work out and rationalise everything in his mind before he accepts it as truth, yet you seem content to give this contradiction a pass and say it could happen that way.

Were is the (A) squared, times pie, minus (B) equals not genetic, formula?

Could it be that homosexuality is a learned behavior after all?

1. Although homosexuality probably has a genetic component, much of its cause, perhaps most of it, appears to be nongenetic (Haynes 1995; Kendler et al. 2000; Kirk et al. 2000). To the extent it is not genetic, selection would not affect it.

Probably? Perhaps most of it?

2. Homosexuals still have children. Sexual orientation is not an either-or trait but exists as a continuum (Haynes 1995). Those with some heterosexual orientation can still contribute homosexual genes (to the extent it is genetic; see above). And even the most extreme homosexuals sometimes have children.

Probably, perhaps...most....do not have have children. Especially these days when homosexuals are being groomed to be homosexual from a very young age through TV, movies, internet, and the public schools.

3. Genes for homosexuality could be beneficial on the whole. In bonobo chimpanzees, homosexual interactions are a form of social cement. It is possible that homosexuality evolved to serve social functions in humans, too (Kirkpatrick 2000). After all, social cohesion is still a main function of sex in humans.

The genes that "probably" don't exsist "could be" beneficial on the whole? Whether or not homosexuality served a social function in irrelevent. Would T-rex have survived had he been friendlier.

 

[peace4all]

[quote:8a932]2. Homosexuals still have children. Sexual orientation is not an either-or trait but exists as a continuum (Haynes 1995). Those with some heterosexual orientation can still contribute homosexual genes (to the extent it is genetic; see above). And even the most extreme homosexuals sometimes have children.

Probably, perhaps...most....do not have have children. Especially these days when homosexuals are being groomed to be homosexual from a very young age through TV, movies, internet, and the public schools. [/quote:8a932]

Correct, most do not have children because most states Ban gay adoption, for whatever horrible reason..

No one is being groomed to be a homosexual. Solely because you teach acceptance, doesn't mean you teach it. Teaching acceptance of muslims, doesn't make more kids muslims. Teaching acceptance towards weight issues, doesn't make more kids want to get fat.
Or does it??? :roll:

 

[Drew]

Drew wrote:

Who knows. But it certainly could be the case that homosexuals are born as such and pedophiles are not. We cannot tell nature how it is to behave - we have to let it tell us what is actually the case.

But it isn't nature telling us that one sexual preferance is genetic, and one is not. It's an idiology saying this, and that idiology provided nothing to explain this contradiction other than that's what they want it to be. I'm surprised, coming from you, Drew, who must work out and rationalise everything in his mind before he accepts it as truth, yet you seem content to give this contradiction a pass and say it could happen that way.

Were is the (A) squared, times pie, minus (B) equals not genetic, formula?

Could it be that homosexuality is a learned behavior after all?

I do not understand your point. What I am saying is that the truth about the matter of whether homosexuals or pedophiles are born that way or not "is what it is" and nobody's "ideology" is of any relevance. Could you spell out precisely what the contradiction is?

You say:

But it isn't nature telling us that one sexual preferance is genetic, and one is not. It's an idiology saying this, and that idiology provided nothing to explain this contradiction other than that's what they want it to be

Any ideology that says anything about whether a sexual preference is genetic or not could be right. Or it could be wrong. But contradictions only arise when the facts have been established. There is absolutely no contradiction in someone saying the following:

Homosexuality is genetic and pedophilia is not

This is a possible state of affairs - we do not get to tell mother nature how to work. I just do not see what the problem here is.

 

[Drew]

3. Genes for homosexuality could be beneficial on the whole. In bonobo chimpanzees, homosexual interactions are a form of social cement. It is possible that homosexuality evolved to serve social functions in humans, too (Kirkpatrick 2000). After all, social cohesion is still a main function of sex in humans.

The genes that "probably" don't exsist "could be" beneficial on the whole? Whether or not homosexuality served a social function in irrelevent. Would T-rex have survived had he been friendlier.

No, the issue of whether homosexuality serves some social function is indeed relevant. You have not addressed the other supporting information provided in the original argument. I will repost as follows adding my own bolding:

The genetic etiology of homosexuality may come from a collection of traits that, when expressed strongly and in concert, result in homosexuality; expressed less strongly or without supporting traits, these traits contribute to the robust nature of our species. The genes for these traits persist because they usually combine to make us better at survival and reproduction.

The whole point is that it is simply not correct to hold that homosexuals will die out if they do not couple with women and have children. Even if homosexuals do not reproduce, the genes that can lead to homosexuality will persist precisely because these genes "usually combine to make us better at survival and reproduction".

As suggested, homosexuality could serve some kind of social function that globally maximizes the chances for survival of the species. I think that you are assuming that these genes are only found in homosexuals. This is not what is being said, I think.

The genes in question exist throughout the population. In most people, they are "expressed less strongly or without supporting traits". These people do not become homosexuals. For some people such genes are "expressed strongly and in concert, resulting in homosexuality".

Since, by hypothesis, there may be some social value (for the species as a whole) associated with homosexuality, there is no evolutionary pressure to weed out these genes. Maybe, as the author suggests, having some homosexuals around is good for maintaining the social cohesion - and hence the survival - of the species.

 

[Dave...]

Drew, you are impossible to reason with. Ill just leave it at that.

As far as homosexuality not being taught....you've got to be kidding!

 

[Drew]

Drew, you are impossible to reason with. Ill just leave it at that.

If I am in error, then presumably you (or someone) can identify the error. So why "simply leave it at that"? If your counterargument has strength, people will recognize it as such and your point will be strengthened.

 

[Drew]

As far as homosexuality not being taught....you've got to be kidding!

Where, precisely, did I say that homosexuality is not taught? Remember, I posted the thoughts of other people and never committed as to whether I shared their view.