fxashun

Do you ever stop obfuscating and trying to change the subject?
I never said "blending in" made it natural.
Some individual asked why homosexuality did not have any "adaptations", so I answered that question.
Your reply in no way addresses my answer, and proceeds to obfuscate the hell out of it.

How is this for addressing it. Your answer doesn't make sense. Since the changes can be totally internal. There are NO changes, nothing at all. Try again. Homosexuals are defective humans.

Cultures have directly ordered homosexuals be killed, and that still happens to this day.
Your comment on "women" doesn't even compare in magnitude and global scope of what I am talking about.

You know why a culture would order homosexuals to be killed? For starters they are a waste of resources. Depending on the culture and time, it wouldn't make sense to keep homosexuals around. Just as a "slow" child or a child born with some type of physical deformity. Killing defective offspring is "natural".

My point is un-refuted by your reply. Adaptations CAN occur, but there is no reason to believe that a conclusion can be drawn because they do NOT occur.
Man could be a more effective hunting machine if we could shoot lasers from our eyes.
Does the fact that we can't mean we aren't supposed to eat meat?

Is there an animal that can shoot lasers on this planet? Man's intelligence made him a better hunter. We developed tools and have an omnivorous digestive system for sustenance. Vegetables are a required part of diets actually and vegan are proof that we CAN live without meat. Not so much without veggies though.

WHY do you think homosexuals should have some adaptation???

For the reasons I have already covered. There is no natural system to support homosexual sex. Sure you CAN do it but compare the system for heterosexual sex and homosexual behaviour, it's a black hole. Pardon the pun.

And likewise it has been already refuted in this thread...
The thinking that homosexuals "should have" some adaptation is completely arbitrary, and in the big scope of things OVERRULED by the realization that such an adaptation would be MORE DANGEROUS to homosexuals than helpful.

No it hasn't been refuted. There is no natural instinct that has no support.

Calling my argument "rationalization" does not refute the point.
You have failed to meet an essential burden of proof.
You demand to know why adaptations are not present in homosexuals.
I demand to know why they NEED to be present in the first place.

Yes it does. Your point didn't make any sense as I pointed out before.

It would make no evolutionary sense if an adaptation actually lead to the animal being MORE likely to be killed. Obviously, such an adaptation would be incredibly self-destructive.

But there is no proof that a cluster of homosexual people would be mor elikely to be killed. But there is no such thing as a "cluster of homosexual people" since homosexual sexual behavior doesn't result in offspring. Additionally according to the crowd here, there have been cultures which accepted homosexuality, so why didn't those homosexual people develope differently? I'm sorry, the "camouflage" theory doesn't wash. Cept to a delusional homosexual person.

An aardvark with a neon flashlight for a beak would more easily find grubs in the dark.
It would also present the even BIGGER disadvantage of being more vulnerable to hunters who can find it more easily.

Or he could just develope better night sight like other noctural animals. Are there any other mammals that have developed a light emitting structure like insects?

THAT is part of the problem with your whole approach.
You INSIST that there have to be "adaptations" that you NEVER show a "need" for.
Yet when a "need" is shown for the ABSENCE of the adaptation, you claim it is "rationalization..

No that's not the problem at all. The problem is that homosexual people can't see that they are a result of some hormonal or genetic mistake and are trying to pigeonhole themselves into acceptance. The homosexual orientation create socially viable but still defective humans.

__________________
Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or who said it, no matter if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense.
Buddha

fxashun

I'd be curious if dabateman actually said that, but it brings up the question of who decides what is "needed" in the first place.
Higher intelligence may not be "needed", but it is obviously beneficial.
If it is classified as "needed", does that mean people of lower intelligence automatically die out?

Actually a person with sub-standard IQ would probably do just that in some cultures. A certain minimum IQ is needed for survival.
Mental Retardation: A Symptom and a Syndrome
The plight of individuals with developmental disabilities has been dependent on the customs and beliefs of the era and the culture or locale. In ancient Greece and Rome, infanticide was a common practice.

There you go again with this lame psycho-babble.
You declare things that our bodies are "designed for", and ignore what they can ACTUALLY do. What performance is actually BETTER...

No. That's not psycho-babble. The human body is set up perfectly for it's intended purpose. Homosexual urges is as natural as three feet. And there are no animals with three feet.

In that case, one has to wonder how it has survived all these millenia. Also amongst NUMEROUS species.
One would logically conclude that your "conclusion" itself is flawed...

It has survived because it is an error. Many birth defects have survived. How is my conclusion flawed?

Obviously there are more things that are beneficial than just what our bodies are "designed for".
Are our bodies "designed for" flight? Of course not.
Are our bodies "designed for" underwater exploration or space flight? No.
But doing those things have lead to amazing advancements.

But we can't fly without tools. We can't survive too long unerwater without tools. And we can't survive in space without tools. Without tools homosexual sex is near impossible. Women have no phallus spit doesn't quite cut it as a lubricant.

But some people would just pretend that they're just "low on helium" because they refuse to see the advantages.

There are no advantages that can't be done heterosexually. Homosexual people can't do anything unique.

Do we "need" to do those things? Definitely not.
But the benefits cannot be denied...
... although I guess benefits CAN be obfuscated by some...

See above sentence

__________________
Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or who said it, no matter if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense.
Buddha

fxashun

The argument that you failed to address was the lack of perfection in nature. You seem to be giving nature this HUGE role of developing the ultimate creature and anything that isn't directly related to this development is thrown out as flawed. (This was an argument used by Hitler in his attacks against the Jews btw)

I never said that nature was perfect. But the only urge that we have that isn't supported is homosexuality. Nature can create several errors.

If nature was this perfectly working instrument, then we would all be the same. There is no evolutionary reason (environmentally or behavior wise) for humans to have a dominate hand. Even if you buy that there is a reason for a dominate hand, how come we all aren't the same? How come this perfect nature hasn't made us all right handed?

But even if there is a dominant hand. what difference does that make? What if we use the left kidney more than the right one? Doesn't matter. But homosexuality is quite a bit different than what hand you masterbate with.

What about the ostrich? Why does it have wings if it can't fly? Does the fact that it can't fly make it bad? If it's bad why hasn't nature scrapped it for a new model?

Actually nature took care of that by giving it powerful legs, which all of them have. A flying ostrich would be the equivalent of a homosexual person.

I don't dispute that sexuality can be an 'abnormality', but an abnormality does not a disease make. An abnormality is a simple difference between the predominate stacking of dominoes and your stack. Everyone is a bit abnormal. Genetic variation does not equate genetic flaw.

I disagree. The homosexual person is the equivalent of a white domino in a pack of black ones. It goes beyond a genetic variation. It is a genetic error. If it is genetic. That's not yet proven.

__________________
Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or who said it, no matter if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense.
Buddha

tristanrobin

Doesn't everybody get a real kick out of the way he engages in a "civil" discussion?

__________________
*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*

dabateman

*tear* My bad. Here is the link... Enjoy.

Misconceptions about natural selection

I must have hit the backspace and deleted the final part of the link. But this is the information on evolution and how it works and doesn't work.

foundit66

It STILL doesn't answer the issue.
WHY do homosexuals need adaptations in the first place???
Initially, you talked about breasts on a man or other stupid crap because you thought it might help in this way or that.
And STILL you are hung up on the idiotic notion that gays NEED an adaptation, even though you can present no rational reason WHY they supposedly need an adaptation.


Cultures kill homosexuals out of stupidity and bigotry.
And you revel in it.
You're showing your true colors. It was only a matter of time...


I'm sorry, did my sarcasm need to be spelled out for you?
Yes. As a species, we developed tools and an omnivorous digestive system.
This helped in a variety of ways.
But you still have presented NO REAL REASON WHY the gay adaptation should occur in the first place.

I can't help but notice that you YET AGAIN AVOIDED the real point of that paragraph.


"for the reasons you have already covered".
You forgot the second part of that sentence...
"... and were ALREADY SHOT DOWN."

The reason you don't want to explain it is because your reasoning is PURELY ARBITRARY.
Like I stated, you cannot show ANY NEED for homosexuals to have an "adaptation". It's pure convenient speculation on your part to MAKE UP a purely arbitrary standard, and then declare gays as non competent because they don't meet your standard.
It's idiotic, especially when considering that NO NATIONAL SCIENTIST or MEDICAL PRACTITIONER group thinks like you do.
Unless you count the small ones that are formed just for the express purpose of being bigotted against gays...

Like I pointed out earlier, and you predictably gave no response, WHY does the receiver of gay male sodomy experience pleasure? WHY does the prostate deliver pleasure when being probed?

As much as you can't bring yourself to grasp it, there IS a "natural" to gay sex.
(And no, I'm not talking about your made-up definition of the word...)


Is you being too stupid to understand my point somehow an argument?


This has got to be the absolute DUMBEST thing you have ever said.
Hell. The Judeo-Christian / Islamic religious groups all have a history of killing gays.


So if a chameleon finds a nice protected place, he should suddenly lose his adaptive camoflauge and ignore how often he gets killed without it?

This "adaptation" rant is just plain stupid.


You notice what he did?
AGAIN?
He IGNORED the fact that he STILL can't show a need for an adaptation, and instead he turned around and made some thinly veiled insults towards gays.

NOWHERE does he explain WHY an adaptation has to be present in gays.
NOWHERE does he give anything but his own opinion that gays need or should have an adaptation.

__________________
"(Gay marriage) is a debate about whether you think gay people are part of the human condition or just a random fetish."
-- Jon Stewart
** "Actually heterosexual males CAN'T have anal sex with females, they have no penises."
^^ foundit66: "by your interpretation, Martin Luther King Jr was a bigot"
** fxashun: Sure, why not.
-- Fxashun

dabateman

When specifically dealing with my posts, I would ask that fxashun avoid words such as defective and error because there is no proof that it is an error. An abnormality yes, but an error implies nature is aware of the changes it's making and the specific change was against natures desire. Lets not personify nature too much. Defective is much the same way. It implies that any abnormality is defective. We should be responsible and use the word abnormal when discussing issues of science and evolution.

I have yet to see a reasonable scientific basis for calling homosexuality an error.

On a lighter note, what was this that I supposedly said referenced in the top part of post 222

AlicornsPrayer

Thanks darling. (((HUGZ)))

__________________




http://dragcave.net/user/AlicornsPrayer

http://quiz.ravenblack.net/blood.pl?biter=UpbeatSweetie

garysher

I didn't drop your ridiculous notion that homosexuals could not adapt visually because they would all be murdered.

After I finally stopped laughing, I responded by saying that if homosexuals served any kind of indispensable or even vaguely useful purpose then why would anyone want to kill them?

So far you have failed to come up with any reason why homosexuals need to exist in nature.

Oh apart from the ludicrous one about homosexuals adopting the offspring of irresponsible parents. And we pointed out that you don't have to be homosexual to do that.

__________________

tristanrobin

what stupid, offensive, absurd comments

what is the "reason" blondes, redheads, tall people, tone-deaf, left-handed people, blue-eyed people, etc. "exist in nature?"

garysher is really scraping the bottom of the barrel, trying to find ways to insult people without getting banned (yet again)

__________________
*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*