Originally posted by Starlight
View Post
That claim doesn't make any sense. If you're assuming that same-sex couples can't have children by scientific interventions, nor by partnering with other same-sex couples of the opposite sex to conceive shared children, and thus are assuming that same-sex couples have no children... Even then your point doesn't work, because if the heterosexual couples are extremely fertile they can still make up for the same-sex couples lack of reproduction. That's pretty easy in animals that have large litters like cats or dogs, though it's somewhat harder in humans who are probably biologically limited to about 15 children in the lifetime of any fertile female. So in humans you probably can't have more than about 6/7ths of the population being homosexual, given the improbable assumptions that homosexuals can't have children and that the heterosexual couple is catholic and hasn't heard of contraception.
And if you could read, you would realize the only reason THAT point was made was that carpe was arguing against the idea that evolution will not select FOR same-sex attraction. To select FOR something is over time to make it the predominant genetic trait. But if evolution selects FOR same-sex, then the percentage same-sex increases and the percentage of available heterosexual couples goes down. In the end, the population implodes. It was supposed to be a point so obvious a third grader could figure it out.
Jim
Comment