Re: Harper vows free vote on gay marriage
nature won't care about a few non-reproducing individuals, which is essentially why it's not legitimate to use an argument based on evolutionary theory to justify discrimination against them.
But the problem stioll goes deeper than this, if one is going to use an argument that suggests that non-reproducing members of a genetic community are,
only by virtue of the thefact that they are non-reproducing, not factors that optimize the survival of particular alleles.The paper Summer cites is very interesting and lends support to the idea that there are subtle side-effects to the the genes that favour homosexuality which insure selection
for them in certain environments.
So, Hoggie's assertion that "homosexuality is a genetic dead end", is not supported by current understanding of evolution and he rebuts himself when he writes:
Counterpoint 6
He still needs to address the issue of allele frequencies in social species being dependent on selection pressures that favour the overall reproductive success of the group, rather than of the particular individuals that the group comprises.
rebuttal 6
Irrelevant counterpoint. It does not address genetics. I'm not arguing that homosexuals have no impact on society. In fact quite the opposite.
because anything that affects "society'", affects the reproductive patterns of scoial creatures, therefore it affects which traits are likely to survive, QED.
Of course, the fact that homosexuality has been around
as a stable trait for at the very least,
10 million years, is pretty clear evidence that it is not actively selected against by virtue of the non-reproductive tendencies it may impart.
BUT
The real point for humans, as opposed to slime molds, bacteria and Ayn Randians is:
we don't base our ethical decisions about how we treat each other on the Naturalistic Fallacy.
Let's go further and concede that homosexuality is a choice (It doesn't look that way at all, but let's say).
Barring slavish adherence to primitive religious writings, why should people who are indistiguishable from any others except in terms of there sexual preference be prohibited from
choosing to be homosexual?
There is no reason. Evidence that shows that sexual preference falls on a continuum and is largely genetically determined is just icing on the cake.
That fundamental question needs to be answered before there is any more debate, in my opinion. Otherwise, it's game,set and match to the "live and let live" crowd. :wav:
