Quote:
|
Originally Posted by willravel
Heterosexual, bisexual, homosexual, beastial, asexual.
Brown, sandy, blonde, red, black.
That's 5 and 5. Look how well that works.
|
Still, notice how 90%+ of all humans fall into the category of 'heterosexual' while there is no such disparity in your comparisons to hair color? If the overwhelming majority of a sample population can be grouped into one category, then we state that this is the natural tendency of that group.
Quote:
|
Homosexuality obviously isn't a defect, as it is obviously functional at reducing overpopulation.
|
The notion that homosexuality is useful at reducing overpopulation is more plausible than the assumption there is as "Gay gene", as there have been studies done on mice and monkey's which prove that they exhibit homosexual tendencies
only when they begin to run out of space to effectively live. Assuming that it is a recessive trait, basic evolution would state that homosexuality should have killed itself off by now, as it's not advantageous to procreation. Of course, this would beg the question as to why China and India don't have rather large homosexual movements since they are the two most overpopulated regions of the world. The notion that there is a "Gay gene" in humans is absurd as, by the basic principles biology/evolution, it would either have to be a recessive trait or have nothing to do with genes at all.
Quote:
|
To aknowledge it's essentially a religous argument is to admit that you're imposing your version of Jesus on another person who isn't hurting you, so thus ends the argument.
|
Who mentioned anything about a Judeo-Christian belief?