Quote:
Originally Posted by foundit66
Would you?
Would you really?
We've got genetically passed diseases, unrefutably passed via genetics, which are directly linked to death or other circumstances which limit them.
Are THEY gone?
|
Nope, but they have one small difference, they allow the person carrying the gene to procreate at nearly the same rate as people who don't carry the gene.
Quote:
While you mock other people's ideas, I think you need to realize that YOU are also coming to the table with some unproven ideas.
Actually, DISPROVEN claims.
|
I'm coming to the table with basic common sense ideas. I make no claims to scientific studies, just good old fashioned horse sense. If you don't pass on your genes, your genes don't get passed on. It doesn't get much simpler than that.
Quote:
And yet, the evidence of the genetic predisposition is there.
Proven in a variety of ways.
Differences between fraternal and genetic twins in rates of homosexuality helps demonstrate a more solid genetic link.
So maybe it's us that should scoff at your idea, as you are presenting some ideas that are obviously disproven....
These are real theories.
The fact that we can't readily test them is NOT a discrepancy in the theory.
It doesn't help *disprove* the theory, nor does it make it any less feasible.
The only "goal" here is to explain the phenomenon.
Something I don't see you even trying to do at all... 
|
Sorry, but the studies that I've seen do not follow the scientific method, they start with a theory and build facts around it to support it. BAD science. Good science is just as willing to prove the theory wrong as it is to prove it right.
Quote:
When I was in high school, I came across a "math problem" that appeared to prove that 1+1=1.
It didn't. There was a flaw in one of the steps it used to reach its conclusion.
Likewise, your "homosexuals would be bred out of the gene pool over time" is like that "1+1=1".
|
No it's not. C'mon, this is simple stuff: If you don't pass on your genes, your genes don't get passed on. How hard is that to understand??
Quote:
Obviously, gays aren't going anywhere.
In fact, gays are ABUNDANT in the animal kingdom as well, showing there is a lot more going on than your simple analysis.
So, on one hand we have people actually ANSWERING your question.
And on the other hand, we have you not liking the answer cause it doesn't match the conclusion you WANT (goal-based decision making), and instead you stick to an analysis which incorporates an assumption which is obviously disproven.
|
My assumption is one that is as basic as 1+2=3. It's not theory, it's simple fact: If don't pass on your genes, your genes don't get passed on.
Quote:
If you think you have a better answer, than give it.
Otherwise, your demurrals are kind of pointless.
|
I already gave my explanation for homosexuality - hormonal influences in the womb and environmental influences. Both explain the results of twin studies. Twin studies are aslo flawed at thier core, because they don't remove the influence of natal hormones. A truly scientific study would be to have two different women carry the twins to term and then study the differences. The problem with that is that it would require an almost insurmountable logistical obstacle. Twin studies are flawed in this way and there's no way realistically to overcome that flaw. Therefore, the results of twin studies are questionable at best. Any scientist would know this fact and the fact that these stusies are presented as good science proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that the scientists involved are not objectively evaluating a theory, but rather trying to prove thier theory is right.
Why is it that homosexuals get all wound up about this whole genetic disposition to homosexuality? If you have a predisposition to homosexuality, then it's there and undeniable. So why try to create a false impression that it's about genes, when the facts show differently? Why not accept that it's because of natal hormones and environment? What is the big deal about wanting to prove that homosexuals have a genetic predisposition to homosexuality?