Seems like the "harem" phenomenon might have something to do with it.
The strongest males claiming all the women for themselves.
Leaves a bunch of males with no sexual outlet and a bunch of women with only one between them.
Over thousands of generations, a homosexual "option" for those not getting any or enough may serve to strengthen a social animal as a species, if not as an individual.
Doesn't much animal homosexuality manifest when population densities are high or male/female ratios are severely out of balance?
I agree.
I agree again.
Actually, it's not a "trait" at all, let alone a survival trait. The misconception that lemmings leap off cliffs to commit suicide when populations get too dense has been throughly debunked. In fact, the film that popularized it "White Wilderness" won an academy award but faked the "mass suicides". It faked the mass migration and actually had lemmings launched off the cliffs with a turntable. Interesting even if it's not got much to do with the topic at hand.
It is merely your opinion that he never saw Jesus.
3 And as he journeyed, he came near Damascus: and suddenly there shined round about him a light from heaven:
4 and he fell to the earth, and heard a voice saying unto him, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me?
5 And he said, Who art thou, Lord? And the Lord said, I am Jesus whom thou persecutest: it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks.
6 And he trembling and astonished said, Lord, what wilt thou have me to do? And the Lord said unto him, Arise, and go into the city, and it shall be told thee what thou must do.
7 And the men which journeyed with him stood speechless, hearing a voice, but seeing no man.
3 As he neared Damascus on his journey, suddenly a light from heaven flashed around him.
4 He fell to the ground and heard a voice say to him, “Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me?”
5 “Who are you, Lord?” Saul asked.
“I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting,” he replied.
6 “Now get up and go into the city, and you will be told what you must do.”
7 The men traveling with Saul stood there speechless; they heard the sound but did not see anyone.
Good to know that you disagree.
You're still wrong, of course, but by all means, disagree away. Lots of people disagree with science, while using automobiles, airplanes, computers, and, of course, fire.
Oh, and I'd be willing to bet that you didn't read the article I linked to.
That is entirely possible. While there is a lot of speculation on why homosexuality has survived evolutionary processes, it is manifestly certain that it has. Your idea is as good as any.
They do migrate spontaneously in response to population pressure, which was the overall point.
From much experience with gay people I am also convinced that some are born that way and some end up that way due to psycho-social factors. How much of the latter is influenced by the former remains to be seen.
But why is really irrelevant. Live and let live.
I don't tell others how to live their lives because it lets me get all bent out of shape when someone tries to tell me how to live mine.
A lot of species will migrate in response to population pressure. What's the relevance to the topic of homosexual behavior genesis (which isn't the original topic of this thread but seems to be where it has landed).
That some behaviors lie "dormant" until environmental factors trigger them. Species that migrate under population pressures don't when those pressures don't exist.
And that these types of migrations are for survival of the species not the individual, who may die during the migration.
Right. You've got "science" on your side. "Science" seems to be on every side of this debate.
I have struggled to find any evidence that behavior must have an evolutionary benefit in order to exist. Can you please point out where in the article that was nailed down? I did read the article and didn't see anything that supported such a statement.
I don't think lemming migration is a "dormant behavior". It's merely a natural response to overpopulation, rather than a "latent behavior" waiting to be triggered by environmental stimuli.
snopes.com: White Wilderness Lemmings Suicide
But even if this was some sort of latent behavior waiting for a species wide stimulus, that wouldn't explain homosexuality, which is a behavior that has been represented in some small measure throughout recorded history and not in spasms and spurts as events triggered this latency.
Yes, I do have science on my side.
and no, science does not know, as yet anyway, just why homosexuality has survived the process of evolution.
So?
I agree with all that. I simply don't agree that homosexual marriage is a right. Essentially, homosexuality is an alternative lifestyle and I think an alternative to marriage is quite appropriate as a solution to whatever challenges homosexual parnters face due to inadequate legal framework for their relationships.
These kinds of things have to do with populations, not entire species.
All the deer in the world don't migrate when one valleys population triggers migratory behavior.
And being "out" is certainly more likely in cultures that accept it than in those that consider it a capital offense. So historical context is difficult.
And as I've said, I'm don't think ALL people who self identify as "gay" were born that way or even with a strong predisposition.
Just asking for clarification that the science on your side doesn't know why homosexuality survived the process of evolution. That's all. Thanks for being straight up about that. Most in this discussion aren't so honest.
One could argue that heterosexual marriage isn't a "right" either.
Personally, I think "marriage" should be religions version and "civil union" be EVERYBODY'S legal status.
Removes "marriage" from the states purview and makes all unions equal under the law.
One could argue that heterosexual marriage isn't a "right" either.
Personally, I think "marriage" should be religions version and "civil union" be EVERYBODY'S legal status.
Removes "marriage" from the states purview and makes all unions equal under the law.
That's the ultimate solution to the question of gay marriage. Render unto Caesar and all that, allow churches to decide who is "married", and who just has a "civil union".
Indiana GOP passes law making it a crime for clergy to marry gays
Speaking of ****ting all over religious freedom ... I thought the GOP was all about that, guess not when it comes to gays.
That's s
Granted, not the most unbiased source in the world. However, don't you think that a religion should be free to perform a religious ceremony?
I think that would solve all the emotional based dispute over this. The legal ramifications of taxes, employee benefits, survivor benefits, etc., as administered by the state would still be on the table. There would be a reason why the state would put up these sorts of legal concessions and the state would have to determine which, IF ANY, relationships warranted such concessions. At this point, however, the protection of equal rights would be MUCH more in play than it would with "marriage" and all it's social baggage being the point of contention.
Except that, all men being created equal and all, if any pair of consenting adults had these sorts of concessions, then all pairs of consenting adults would have them.
It is the "opinion" of many biblical scholars that Paul, who was once Saul, never saw Jesus in the flesh. Knowing him only from visions, the first of which was on the "road to Damascus"
Then we have the story as told in Act 9:3-7 (Authorized KJV)
NIV
I'd agree except that this is a state sanctioned "legal entity" similar to a corporation. In some states marriage actually is a bona fide legal entity. A government can restrict people from getting a liquor license, driver's license, business license, gambling license... etc. etc. etc. The state may also require that a corporation have certain characteristics and, likewise, it could demand that a civil union have certain characteristics to qualify for license.... like being only two people. Or being male plus female. Now I'll agree that there would be a good argument to challenge a state's restrictions based on equal rights but I don't know that equal rights would outweigh the state's legitimate interest in defining the types of relationships it agrees to sanction. The real case would be in whether the Supreme Court would find such a compelling individual interest as to override anything but the most compelling state interest.
See, it's not a matter of individual equality, but one of legal definitions, legal entities and states' rights to issue concessions as it pleases. Like can it really issue tax breaks that apply only to single parents?
That's a severe violation of the First Amendment.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?