Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

The evolution of gay animals (Exhibit uses evolution to justify homosexuality)
AZCentral | October 27, 2006 | Staff

Posted on 10/27/2006 2:11:17 PM PDT by DaveLoneRanger

Link Only: The evolution of gay animals


TOPICS:
KEYWORDS: crevo; crevolist; evolution; homosexual; perverts
In the ongoing debates of creation vs. evolution, I was told that murderous killing sprees such as Columbine cannot be justified by Survival of the Fittest rules, because the two died, and thus failed to complete the ultimate goal of any species, to reproduce.

These gay animals also fail that rule. Thus, as Ann Coulter asked in Godless, why haven't homosexual creatures become extinct?

1 posted on 10/27/2006 2:11:20 PM PDT by DaveLoneRanger
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: gobucks; mikeus_maximus; MeanWestTexan; JudyB1938; isaiah55version11_0; Elsie; LiteKeeper; ...


You have been pinged because of your interest regarding news, debates and editorials pertaining to the Creation vs. Evolution - from the young-earth Creationist perspective.
Freep-mail me if you want on/off this list:
Add me / Remove me



This thread has the potential to become extremely volatile. Therefore, be RESPECTFUL and POLITE but don't back down from asking the hard questions.
2 posted on 10/27/2006 2:12:39 PM PDT by DaveLoneRanger (I'm not paranoid. But everyone thinks I am.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DaveLoneRanger
Thus, as Ann Coulter asked in Godless, why haven't homosexual creatures become extinct

I don't know that homosexuality is genetic, but the question fails the Basic High School Science Test.

Haven't either of you ever heard of recessive genes?

3 posted on 10/27/2006 2:13:33 PM PDT by highball (Proud to announce the birth of little Highball, Junior - Feb. 7, 2006!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: scripter; DBeers; little jeremiah

Homosexual agenda ping.


4 posted on 10/27/2006 2:14:51 PM PDT by DaveLoneRanger (I'm not paranoid. But everyone thinks I am.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DaveLoneRanger
Works for amoeba
5 posted on 10/27/2006 2:15:04 PM PDT by Mrs.Z (Mrs.Z)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DaveLoneRanger

6 posted on 10/27/2006 2:16:37 PM PDT by Doogle (USAF 69-73...."never store a threat you should have eliminated")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: highball

Sure have, Highball. Nice way to start out the thread.

If you don't know that homosexuality is genetic, then why pose the question? If those recessive genes are a bust every single time they cross to become dominant, then why do they still exist? Is homosexuality a relatively new thing? If the goal of all species is to survive and reproduce, doesn't that make homosexuals evolutionary freaks? Because funny enough, I don't hear that very loudly from the pro-evolution side. If they were truly a conservative majority, you'd think we'd hear that more.


7 posted on 10/27/2006 2:18:13 PM PDT by DaveLoneRanger (I'm not paranoid. But everyone thinks I am.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Doogle
Photobucket - Video and Image Hosting
8 posted on 10/27/2006 2:18:27 PM PDT by digger48
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: DaveLoneRanger
It is to persuade the public that, as there are gay whales and worms

Gay worms?
9 posted on 10/27/2006 2:18:59 PM PDT by kinoxi
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DaveLoneRanger

So, do they become fur dressers and den decorators?


10 posted on 10/27/2006 2:22:02 PM PDT by mikeus_maximus (The Red Chinese are going build MG's in Oklahoma-- that's just wrong on so many levels.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DaveLoneRanger
Although not the intention, the author is demonstrating that Romans 1:18-28 is true after all.

"Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles."

AND

"worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator"

AND

"In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion"

in the same article...


The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.
For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles.
Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen.
Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.
Furthermore, since they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, he gave them over to a depraved mind, to do what ought not to be done.

11 posted on 10/27/2006 2:23:17 PM PDT by FreedomProtector
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: DaveLoneRanger
as Ann Coulter asked in Godless, why haven't homosexual creatures become extinct?

I've got the book, but am embarrased to say I haven't gotten very far in it.

I curious what Ms. Coulter's answer is, do know what page it's on?

Oh, and per regulations:


12 posted on 10/27/2006 2:40:01 PM PDT by benjaminjjones (Assachusetts, land of the "Free 'em All Deval" Patrick & Preverts"R"Us)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DaveLoneRanger

Besides, wouldn't that also justify rape, murder, child molestation, violence, theft, and other nasty things like eating your own excrement? It hardly proves the morality of the act. It doesn't even prove it is natural. If that were the case, by definition there would be no such thing as unnatural.


13 posted on 10/27/2006 2:42:20 PM PDT by The Ghost of FReepers Past (Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light..... Isaiah 5:20)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kinoxi
I'm not sure how that would work!


14 posted on 10/27/2006 2:45:46 PM PDT by DaveLoneRanger (I'm not paranoid. But everyone thinks I am.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: DaveLoneRanger
While Romans provides a theological answer as to why there are homosexuals (simply ... it is one sort of an appetite that sin can be expressed through), any scientific or political treatment of this question has to deal with several issues:

First, was the basis for various medical groups dropping homosexuality from the list of mental illnesses actually scientifically based––or based on unbiased science––or what?

There is ample evidence that the move was at least partly political and in accordance with an agenda and also some of the so-called scientific studies on sexuality would have seemed to have been structurally flawed or else driven to reach a forgone conclusion.

Second, what effect will the larger societal debates have to bias all concerned with respect to question of homosexuality?

It is fairly clear that the progressives would shout long and hard that any move to question the status quo would be de facto evidence for some establishment of religion ... as if no one should ever question bad science or scientific method provided the end results are friendly to progressives.

It is also fairly clear that many with traditional moral views will always have a hard time accepting the claims made by researchers about the ethics and integrity of the science brought into play ... as the old saying goes, "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me."

But there is a third aspect I would like to add ... that the playing field really isn't level as many believe nor was it ever meant to be (at least in America).

The 1st Amendment is not a random grouping of thoughts placed together, as it were, to avoid the repetition of that odious phrase "Congress shall not" ... but rather it is a single article that reflects the right to have a good conscience in every society in which a man may travel.

First––or rather last––is the right to have a good conscience before your government (petition), to the end of which the right to peaceable assembly is protected.

I would even go so far as to state that the very actions associated with electing officials is itself a form of petition and peaceable assembly ... determining first the very make-up of the government itself.

Second, is the right to have a good conscience before your fellow men, for what is "the press" except those who act to publish their views, ideas, news and facts?

In truth, the second clause of the Amendment respects the right to "petition" your fellow citizens––both to those you may stand before and to those you may attempt to reach through publishing or broadcasting yourself (as, indeed, I'm trying to do now).

Then to end at the beginning, what profit is it to be free to possess a good conscience before man and man's institutions IF one is able to be bound to not exercise the same before the divine?

If a man were required to defile their conscience with respect to their most cherished and fundamental beliefs then how could they be said to be exercising a good conscience before their fellow men or their government IF they agree?

Please notice that in the second and third clauses the rights to speak, publish, petition and assemble are limited by implied or specified conditions.

There has never been a blanket right to perjury, slanders, defamation or the use of fighting words: so no aspect of the second clause empowers one to speak fearlessly from a defiled conscience.

Likewise, any assembly much be peaceable to be protected (and by extension any attempt at petition).

BUT, in the case of man's conscience before the divine there is no hint that whatever constitutes the basis for that conscience as being itself subject to regulation.

Simply, the People's right to act on the basis of their most cherished beliefs––even to the point of enacting laws––is an arguably protected basis FOR laws (arguably the only specifically protected reason for laws).

The limitation is not conscience derived from religious principal influencing society or its government––for that would still include the need to inform the People, run candidates, get elected, form coalitions and the like––but to respect an establishment of religion ... which is nothing less and nothing more than setting up a specific religious truth or doctrine THE public profession of which would be a prerequisite for participation in society after some fashion or else service in or to the government.

Thus the right to a good conscience, and to act on same, may well trump the desired rights of this or that group.

But there is no constitutional way for one bunch to declare victory and establish laws that would drive nonconformist away from their government, their society or the participation therein as equals.

A comparable issue involves certain interpretations of Islam: some feel that to be good Muslims they must seek to impose Shiria; however, such an imposition is contrary to the 1st Amendment's prohibition against establishment of religion.

Thus for SOME Muslims (not all) they cannot finally be "good Muslims" and "good Americans" because of this belief.

But that says nothing about Muslims finding common moral ground with others to enact laws ultimately framed on the basis of religious principal THAT DO NOT prevent persons from acting on their own good conscience.

Thus they can oppose abortion and gay marriage or the like AS WELL AS support laws against sodomy, racism, murders, perjuries or the like.

And, of course, what would be true of Muslims would be equally true of others, say––for example––a Pope were to decree (as in times past––I'm NOT SAYING IT WOULD EVER HAPPEN AGAIN––please be clear on that) that Catholics were to seek to conform governance to Papal edicts and restrain Protestants, infidels and others from full and equal involvement in society.

Of course, the same could be said of the Anglican Church (in some weird alternate reality were they aren't "libbing" themselves into extinction) and Scottish Presbyterians (members of which tried twice––in 1730 and 1767––to make an establishment of the Westminster Confession of Faith in Scottish government in in times and place both known to the Founding Fathers and influential upon them).
15 posted on 10/27/2006 3:16:35 PM PDT by Rurudyne (Standup Philosopher)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: FreedomProtector

Amen and amen.

So it seems that in abondoning God's design for mankind (glorifying Him), mankind as it were, broke.

Not an unlikely scenario. If I design something to function one way and it is used in a completely different way (a high heeled shoe used as a hammer - c'mon ladies, you know you've done it!), the tendancy is to break it or at least shorten its lifespan. Not every shoe will break, but the *tendancy* certainly is there.


16 posted on 10/27/2006 3:25:51 PM PDT by 1forall (America - my home, my land, my country.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: benjaminjjones
as Ann Coulter asked in Godless, why haven't homosexual creatures become extinct?

The article mentions this:
"This suggests a chick with two dads could get more food and therefore have a better chance of survival. But explanations are harder when gay animals (such as some humans and, apparently, some killer whales) never try to mate with the opposite sex.
Right about here insert a picture of captain obvious. But obvious observations and their conclusions are often contradictory to the evolutionists presuppositions...hence far-fetched stories follow:

Notice, how the far-fetched stories are prefaced w/ "Theoretically"

"Theoretically, there are several possible ways homosexuality could have evolved. One is that homosexuals assist in the upbringing of their relatives so much that they pass on more of their genes this way than by having children themselves. Another suggestion assumes the genes that confer homosexuality in males are different from those that confer it in females.

For the theory to work, these genes would have to confer some extra reproductive advantage to their straight carriers. This way, genes that increase the chances of one sex surviving and reproducing might not be discarded through the generations even though they inhibit making babies when they occur in the opposite sex. But testing these theories is hard, so nobody knows if they are true."
Then state the obvious about theories related to historical reconstruction (if unfalsifiable, science or faith?):

But testing these theories is hard, so nobody knows if they are true.

17 posted on 10/27/2006 3:29:54 PM PDT by FreedomProtector
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: 1forall
(a high heeled shoe used as a hammer - c'mon ladies, you know you've done it!)

LOL!

The Designer/Creator of life provided an owner's manual, it is wise to heed the warnings...
18 posted on 10/27/2006 3:37:04 PM PDT by FreedomProtector
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: benjaminjjones
You haven't gotten very far! It's on page 2. "If people are born gay, why hasn't Darwinism weeded out people who don't reproduce?" It's an open-ended question.
19 posted on 10/27/2006 4:02:15 PM PDT by DaveLoneRanger (I'm not paranoid. But everyone thinks I am.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: benjaminjjones
It's an open-ended question.
Pun unintended....
20 posted on 10/27/2006 4:03:42 PM PDT by DaveLoneRanger (I'm not paranoid. But everyone thinks I am.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Sir Francis Dashwood

Ping.


21 posted on 10/27/2006 4:37:49 PM PDT by ml1954 (ID = Case closed....no further inquiry allowed...now move along.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DaveLoneRanger
I just checked and I was on page 33, Chapter 2, but I haven't picked it up in a while.

From what I remember, a lot of it so far has been about how the liberal and/or activist courts have screwed up America, and it hasn't made me laugh as much as her last one.

I figured anything to do with evolution would be in Chapter 8, "The Creation Myth", which I'm not looking forward to reading, because I'm afraid I'm going to disagree with Ms. Coulter on something for the first time.

I thought maybe I could postpone that unpleasantness by just jumping ahead to a specific page.

22 posted on 10/27/2006 5:12:31 PM PDT by benjaminjjones (Assachusetts, land of the "Free 'em All Deval" Patrick & Preverts"R"Us)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: highball
I don't know that homosexuality is genetic,...

Birth defect...

Mental illness...

Choice...

Pick one.

23 posted on 10/27/2006 5:34:02 PM PDT by Sir Francis Dashwood (LET'S ROLL!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: DaveLoneRanger

24 posted on 10/27/2006 8:13:24 PM PDT by Tamar1973 (We can't be brilliant all the time but the path to conservative brilliance starts at Free Republic!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DaveLoneRanger
Thanks for the ping.

Here's an informative article on the subject: The Animal Homosexuality Myth.

BTW, DBeers is too busy these days so wagglebee has taken over the HA ping list for now.

25 posted on 10/27/2006 10:31:38 PM PDT by scripter ("You don't have a soul. You are a soul. You have a body." - C.S. Lewis)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Rurudyne
Re: Your post 15.

I say again, well DONE, sir.

26 posted on 10/28/2006 12:19:33 AM PDT by grey_whiskers
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: kinoxi

How about gay snails? Those hermaphrodites are pretty weird.


27 posted on 10/28/2006 2:26:46 AM PDT by moog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: The Ghost of FReepers Past

If one is to use homosexual "behavior" among animals as evidence for it being natural, then one can use it to justify things like polygamy, as polygamous behavior is far more common among many kinds of animals.


28 posted on 10/28/2006 2:35:37 AM PDT by moog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: DaveLoneRanger
 
 Thus, as Ann Coulter asked in Godless, why haven't homosexual creatures become extinct?

 
 I ' ve  YET  to  see  an  animal  wear  pink  or  fushia!!!
 

 

Genesis 13:13
  Now the men of Sodom were wicked and were sinning greatly against the LORD.
 

Genesis 18:20-21
 20.  Then the LORD said, "The outcry against Sodom and Gomorrah is so great and their sin so grievous
 21.  that I will go down and see if what they have done is as bad as the outcry that has reached me. If not, I will know."

Genesis 19:4-7
 4.  Before they had gone to bed, all the men from every part of the city of Sodom--both young and old--surrounded the house. 
 5.  They called to Lot, "Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us so that we can have sex with them."
 6.  Lot went outside to meet them and shut the door behind him
 7.  and said, "No, my friends. Don't do this wicked thing.


 

Psa. 12:8 8 The wicked freely strut about when what is vile is honored among men.

Ain't this just FABULOUS??          More?

Isaiah 3:9
   The look on their faces testifies against them; they parade their sin like Sodom; they do not hide it. Woe to them! They have brought disaster upon themselves.

 

Ezekiel 16:49-50
 49.  "`Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy.
 50.  They were haughty and did detestable things before me. Therefore I did away with them as you have seen.

 



But there IS hope!!!


 
1 Corinthians 6:9-11

 9.  Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders
 10.  nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. 
 11.  And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.
 


If you could NOT change, you would be in most pitiful shape.....


29 posted on 10/28/2006 4:37:32 AM PDT by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: moog

Good point. And why have marriage at all? Just sleep around and let the kids wander around and kill their own food.


30 posted on 10/28/2006 8:30:12 AM PDT by The Ghost of FReepers Past (Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light..... Isaiah 5:20)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: The Ghost of FReepers Past
Good point. And why have marriage at all? Just sleep around and let the kids wander around and kill their own food. HAHA! Nice one. The funny thing is when I suggested that to someone who did promote the homosexual penguin story as being "proof" of the natural nature of homosexual behavior, then he was pretty irate about it. I have seen, it seems, some cases of same-sex attraction being somewhat natural, but the application and action of that feeling is a CHOSEN behavior.
31 posted on 10/28/2006 8:51:10 AM PDT by moog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: moog
Besides...beyond cuddling, what do lesbian animals actually do?

And I've seen many a dog hump a human leg. So does that prove cross-species sex is natural? Bestiality has been around a long time. Is that natural?

32 posted on 10/28/2006 8:58:38 AM PDT by The Ghost of FReepers Past (Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light..... Isaiah 5:20)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: The Ghost of FReepers Past

I've seen dogs hump pillows too. I guess, sex with inanimate objects is natural too. Better put condoms on those pet rocks to protect them. Once our dog did try to hump the cat, but quickly learned that wasn't worth it.


33 posted on 10/28/2006 9:10:36 AM PDT by moog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: The Ghost of FReepers Past

"Besides...beyond cuddling, what do lesbian animals actually do? "

Someday they may be able to produce "off" spring. :)


34 posted on 10/28/2006 9:12:18 AM PDT by moog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: DaveLoneRanger

One part of the explanation here: http://www.newscientist.com/channel/sex/mg18424690.800-gay-genetics.html

"IF homosexuality is an inherited trait, why do genes for it survive? Because these genes may make women more likely to reproduce.

Andrea Camperio-Ciani's team at the University of Padua, Italy, asked 98 gay and 100 straight men to fill in questionnaires about their families. They found mothers and aunts had more children if related to a gay rather than a straight man. Mothers of gay men averaged 2.7 babies, compared with 2.3 born to mothers of straight men. Aunts on the mother's side had 2 babies compared with 1.5 for maternal aunts of straight men (Proceedings of the Royal Society B, DOI: 10.1098/rspb.2004).

The team suggests that gene variations on the X chromosome make women more likely to have more children, and men more likely to be gay."


35 posted on 10/29/2006 2:33:22 AM PST by moatilliatta
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: moatilliatta

There is no such thing as a "gay" gene. At best, it's an over stimulated "sex" gene. Any "scientist" that states there is a "gay" gene is making it up out of whole cloth.


36 posted on 10/30/2006 5:56:09 PM PST by celmak
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: DaveLoneRanger

I can't imagine why any thinking human would want to claim that when it comes to sex, they are no better than animals. *shakes head*


37 posted on 10/30/2006 6:06:52 PM PST by DJ MacWoW (If you think you know what's coming next....You don't know Jack.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson