If there was a straight pill would homosexuals take it?

[Texas Lynn]

The traits that make it through that weren't meant to. It actually happens a lot.

Who decides? So, what's different about somebody saying you should abort a gay baby and somebody telling Palin she should've aborted her Down's Syndrome baby?

 

[Inviolable]

Who decides? So, what's different about somebody saying you should abort a gay baby and somebody telling Palin she should've aborted her Down's Syndrome baby?

What?

Why do you have to take it that far?
Doesn't prove your point, it only shows that you're sensitive about the subject.

 

[Inviolable]

I guess it's kind of like saying "If you are pregnant, and you know you're going to have a gay baby, you should abort it," just like some must've said or wanted to say to Palin about having a Down's Syndrome baby.

Once again, What?!

Really? Why do you have to take it that far?

 

[Crazy Liz]

I like this article, it explains it kind of nicely.
http://evolgen.blogspot.com/2005/06/random-mutation-and-natural-selection.html

It’s important to understand that when biologists say the mutational process is random, we mean that it is not directed. There is nothing determining definitively that a mutation will occur at a particular nucleotide. Mutations provide the raw material on which natural selection acts. Natural selection is a deterministic process; a beneficial mutation will always reach fixation in an ideal population

I get this. So if evolution is not directed, where do you get your concept of what "should" happen?

http://www.actionbioscience.org/evolution/futuyma.html

First, there is simply no difference between the different genotypes or different genes in their impact on survival or reproduction, and in that case, you can have random changes of one versus the other type in a population or a species until eventually one replaces the other. That is an evolutionary change. It happens entirely by chance, by random fluctuations. That is what we call the process of genetic drift.
Genetic drift is very different from possibility number two, natural selection, which is a much more consistent, predictable, dependable change in the proportion of one gene vs. another, one genotype vs. another. Why? Simply because there is some consistent superiority, shall we way, of one genotype vs. another in some feature that affects its survival or some feature affecting its reproductive capabilities.

Are you calling all mutations that are less likely to reproduce (and therefore may be extinguished through natural selection) "evolutionary errors?"

The articles show that what drives evolution is random mutations. (Random in the sense of undirected and not predictable in terms other than those of probabilities.) Some of these random mutations have no effect on survival or reproduction, and may, over time, contribute to genetic drift. Others have either a positive or negative effect on survival or reproduction, and therefore contribute (usually over time, unless they are fatal or cause sterility) to natural selection.

I still don't see how you get the concept of "evolutionary error."

 

[Crazy Liz]

What?

Why do you have to take it that far?
Doesn't prove your point, it only shows that you're sensitive about the subject.

Once again, What?!

Really? Why do you have to take it that far?

Why would you not, if these children are "evolutionary errors" that "weren't meant to make it through?"

IOW, how is the "should" of evolution different from the "should" of human choices?

 

[Inviolable]

Why would you not, if these children are "evolutionary errors" that "weren't meant to make it through?"

IOW, how is the "should" of evolution different from the "should" of human choices?

I can answer both post by answering this one.

The concept of what "should" happen comes from Natural selection.
Short and sweet.. If an armadillo was once covered in fur, it's not now. These changes take place in the womb.

Homosexuality isn't whats being let through. So it's not actually a mistake, or whatever..
It's an error, because the womb isn't responding the way it should.

More or less.

Just like being left handed. The womb is.. altered, I guess. But not in so many words. After a woman gives birth a few times or through some outside influence, has effected it. It changes and the embryo is manipulated as a direct result of the change.

The change doesn't have to be from something man made. It can be as natural as evolution is described to be. But nonetheless altered from what it was originally.

Which doesn't mean it's what was suppose to happen.

 

[Crazy Liz]

Short and sweet: Is evolution supposed to happen?

Are small numbers of random mutations supposed to happen?

Is natural selection supposed to happen?

 

[Inviolable]

Short and sweet: Is evolution supposed to happen?

Are small numbers of random mutations supposed to happen?

Is natural selection supposed to happen?

I guess, yeah. But by asking these questions I dont think you're seeing what I'm saying.

It's not being altered by evolution but it's still having an effect as if it were.

 

[Texas Lynn]

What?

Why do you have to take it that far?
Doesn't prove your point, it only shows that you're sensitive about the subject.

Should Palin have been "sensitive" if someone recommended she abort the Down's Syndrome baby? What's the difference?

 

[Inviolable]

Should Palin have been "sensitive" if someone recommended she abort the Down's Syndrome baby? What's the difference?

The difference is, I'm not trying to say, it's a major defect and it should be stopped at all cost because people are suffering from it.
Not that I think Down Syndrome babies should be aborted either.

And thats what it looks like you're trying to make it look like so you can make some kind of perverse point that I'm a baby killer or something because I'm making a case against homosexuality.

Which makes you look as if you're so sensitive about the subject that you're willing to go to the extreme and say anything you think is necessary to say.

 

[Crazy Liz]

I can answer both post by answering this one.

The concept of what "should" happen comes from Natural selection.
Short and sweet.. If an armadillo was once covered in fur, it's not now. These changes take place in the womb.

So hairlessness in armadillos is an evolutionary error, like homosexuality?

Homosexuality isn't whats being let through. So it's not actually a mistake, or whatever..

It's an error, because the womb isn't responding the way it should.

The womb is doing something wrong?

More or less.

Just like being left handed. The womb is.. altered, I guess. But not in so many words. After a woman gives birth a few times or through some outside influence, has effected it. It changes and the embryo is manipulated as a direct result of the change.

Huh?

I don't think you understand what you're trying to say. You're saying left-handedness and homosexuality are environmental and happen after a woman has had a few children and somehow something has happened to make her uterus defective, so that it turns embryos gay and left-handed? Do you have any research on this? Most of what I've read seems to point to a variety of factors, some genetic, some environmental.

The change doesn't have to be from something man made. It can be as natural as evolution is described to be. But nonetheless altered from what it was originally.

How do you conclude that alteration from what it was originally is something that is not "supposed to happen?" Normal embryonic and fetal growth involves many changes. Without changes from what the zygote was originally, adult human beings would never develop.

Which doesn't mean it's what was suppose to happen.

It doesn't mean it wasn't supposed to happen. In terms of evolutionary biology, I still don't understand how anything can be described as "supposed to happen."

I guess, yeah. But by asking these questions I dont think you're seeing what I'm saying.

It's not being altered by evolution but it's still having an effect as if it were.

Then in what way is it an evolutionary error?

 

[Inviolable]

So hairlessness in armadillos is an evolutionary error, like homosexuality?

No, I was just trying to explain what natural selection does. I didn't mean armadillos were actually covered in fur at one time. Just showing that now they have no need for fur if they once were covered in it.
Natural selection would've changed it to what they needed.

The womb is doing something wrong?

Yes

I don't think you understand what you're trying to say. You're saying left-handedness and homosexuality are environmental and happen after a woman has had a few children and somehow something has happened to make her uterus defective, so that it turns embryos gay and left-handed? Do you have any research on this? Most of what I've read seems to point to a variety of factors, some genetic, some environmental.

I'm saying, what you've said. "some genetic, some environmental."
and I did leave links on articles on the subject.

How do you conclude that alteration from what it was originally is something that is not "supposed to happen?" Normal embryonic and fetal growth involves many changes. Without changes from what the zygote was originally, adult human beings would never develop.

A human being is like any other machine, it gets old and slowly breaks down.
With age or constant use comes defects.

It doesn't mean it wasn't supposed to happen. In terms of evolutionary biology, I still don't understand how anything can be described as "supposed to happen."

Would you finally agree that natural selection isn't random?

Then in what way is it an evolutionary error?

In that it wasn't prescribed by evolution but a result of wear and tear.
Or constant use, or age or many other factors that are not part of the evolutionary process but it will still look as if it were. Because it comes from the womb.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

I can answer both post by answering this one.

The concept of what "should" happen comes from Natural selection.
Short and sweet.. If an armadillo was once covered in fur, it's not now. These changes take place in the womb.

Homosexuality isn't whats being let through. So it's not actually a mistake, or whatever..
It's an error, because the womb isn't responding the way it should.

More or less.

Just like being left handed. The womb is.. altered, I guess. But not in so many words. After a woman gives birth a few times or through some outside influence, has effected it. It changes and the embryo is manipulated as a direct result of the change.

The change doesn't have to be from something man made. It can be as natural as evolution is described to be. But nonetheless altered from what it was originally.

Which doesn't mean it's what was suppose to happen.

*massaging temples*

Evolution doesn't work that way...

 

[EnemyPartyII]

All of this is facinating... I'm still kind of lost though as to why the OPer thinks homosexuals should take the hypothetical pill in the first place, any more than black people should take a pill to make them white, or left handed people take a pill to make them right handed.

Just because they are different and in the miority doesn't necesarily mean there is anything wrong with them.

I'm also waiting for a more direct response from the OPer about why a heterosexual getting hit on by a homosexual is so much of a trauma compared to a homosexual being hit on by a heterosexual, or, even, a disinterested homosexual being hit on by another homosexual, or a disinterested heterosexual being hit on by another heterosexual? Why is the "homosexual hits on heterosexual" the only situation causing all the angst?

 

[Inviolable]

All of this is facinating... I'm still kind of lost though as to why the OPer thinks homosexuals should take the hypothetical pill in the first place, any more than black people should take a pill to make them white, or left handed people take a pill to make them right handed.

/sighs a deep and overwhelming sigh..
You probably wont, because you're homosexual.

Just because they are different and in the miority doesn't necesarily mean there is anything wrong with them.

And once again.. Thats not the reason but you like to go back to that so it looks that way.

I'm also waiting for a more direct response from the OPer about why a heterosexual getting hit on by a homosexual is so much of a trauma compared to a homosexual being hit on by a heterosexual, or, even, a disinterested homosexual being hit on by another homosexual, or a disinterested heterosexual being hit on by another heterosexual? Why is the "homosexual hits on heterosexual" the only situation causing all the angst?

I dont know it just is, it's a disturbing prospect. I guess if a heterosexual hit on another heterosexual of the same sex then one of them wouldn't really be considered heterosexual
No, actually I can give you an answer but I know darn well you will twist it to the best of your ability and we'll be having one of the most mundane arguments two people could possibly have.

 

[Inviolable]

*massaging temples*

Evolution doesn't work that way...

Yeah, thats the point of the post.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

And once again.. Thats not the reason but you like to go back to that so it looks that way.

With the best will in the world, I'm trying to understand. So what IS the reason why homosexuals should take the hypothetical pill?

I dont know it just is, it's a disturbing prospect. I guess if a heterosexual hit on another heterosexual of the same sex then one of them wouldn't really be considered heterosexual
No, actually I can give you an answer but I know darn well you will twist it to the best of your ability and we'll be having one of the most mundane arguments two people could possibly have.

Masaging temples again.

If a heterosexual MALE hits on a disinterested heterosexual WOIMAN, or vice versa, is what I was suggesting.

And I really would like to try to understand why you think a homosexual hitting on a heterosexual is such a terrible thing, but a heterosexual hitting on a homosexual is perfectly fine.

 

[Inviolable]

If a heterosexual MALE hits on a disinterested heterosexual WOIMAN, or vice versa, is what I was suggesting.

Well, that question would be a tough one to understand.
You're asking why a heterosexual woman shouldn't react badly if she gets hit on by a heterosexual man?
Many do.
Especially if the man is out of her league. Generally if they're not upset the guy is sorely let down.
If you're asking why it's different?
You wouldn't understand and if you could you wouldnt be asking the question in the first place.

And I really would like to try to understand why you think a homosexual hitting on a heterosexual is such a terrible thing, but a heterosexual hitting on a homosexual is perfectly fine.

We can go there again, we'll have the same conversation as always.
Most likely reply from a homosexual is that they find hetero sex disturbing, but only after I point out what I'm about to say.


I've talked with "several gay men and lesbians who have had sexual encounters with people of the opposite sex.
And while I'm not saying all homosexuals find sex with hetero's acceptable, I have seen where a greater number of them can or do enjoy it from time to time.
But thats from chatting with people online.
Some in person. Heck I have a lesbian friend who is open and stayed in a sexual relationship with a guy for over a year.

While I have yet to hear from a hetero that they have every had sex with a homosexual. I'm not saying it doesn't happen, but it would seem to be a rarity. Even some of the straight, pro gay posters in this thread wont admit to ever having homosexual sex.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

Well, that question would be a tough one to understand.
You're asking why a heterosexual woman shouldn't react badly if she gets hit on by a heterosexual man?
Many do.
Especially if the man is out of her league. Generally if they're not upset the guy is sorely let down.
If you're asking why it's different?
You wouldn't understand and if you could you wouldnt be asking the question in the first place.

I think you might be projecting your own experiences against the wider population. Most people don't get to upset if they are hit on by someone they aren't interested in. Why get upset about it? People DO get upset if the interested party doesn't take no for an answer and hounds the disinterested party, THEN its fair enough to get upset. But it doesn't have to be unpleasant if everyone is just polite and friendly about it.

I've talked with "several gay men and lesbians who have had sexual encounters with people of the opposite sex.
And while I'm not saying all homosexuals find sex with hetero's acceptable, I have seen where a greater number of them can or do enjoy it from time to time.
But thats from chatting with people online.
Some in person. Heck I have a lesbian friend who is open and stayed in a sexual relationship with a guy for over a year.

No one is denying there are more bisexuals than homosexuals

 

[Inviolable]

I think you might be projecting your own experiences against the wider population. Most people don't get to upset if they are hit on by someone they aren't interested in. Why get upset about it? People DO get upset if the interested party doesn't take no for an answer and hounds the disinterested party, THEN its fair enough to get upset. But it doesn't have to be unpleasant if everyone is just polite and friendly about it.

No point in arguing I guess.

No one is denying there are more bisexuals than homosexuals

Yeah, funny how a homosexual changes to a bisexual once they have sex with someone of the opposite sex. I'm sure at least one of the people I'm talking about would tell you that they certainly aren't bi.
But you keep saying what you got to say.