Originally posted by carpedm9587
View Post
Not to mention we don't HAVE a 90% homosexuality rate; it's between 3 and 10%, depending on who's numbers you believe. AND you still have not made a link to morality. All of this is why I was saying you had not made a case. As far as I could tell, the only viable "point" from your argument was "an increase in homosexuality could depress the birth rate."
Before this long sidebar, we were trying to deal with why same-sex relationships might be immoral, and I was trying to establish a working set of facts we could agree on. The original fact was not the 90% sidebar which became a quagmire, it was that evolution will not select for* same-sex, because in a natural environment (one like the one the jewish law was created in) too high a same-sex population is detrimental to the sustaining of the population.
Is it possible then that after all the turns and twists, you are agreeing with that slightly modified (italics) form of the original statement? It was after all, the original point. And your statement above I put in bold is very close to saying the same thing.
Jim
*keeping in mind that as I am using it here, to select for a trait means evolution prefers it (it confers a survival advantage), and it will eventually (barring some catastrophe early in its development) become a dominant trait.
Comment