Re: Ken Ham

From: George Murphy (
Date: Wed Mar 19 2003 - 12:57:58 EST

  • Next message: D. F. Siemens, Jr.: "Re: YEC and interpretations (was: Re: asa-digest V1 #3214)" wrote:
    > I don't think you do, but if you have children don't you want
    > them to rise to the top in their generation? Hint: people who don't maintain
    > the prohibitions are Jerry Springer guests.

    I think I've been on the ASA list for about 7 years now & this has got to be the
    funniest "argument" I've yet seen posted on it.
    > Decisions on homosexuality can be made on the basis of reproductive success.
    > Homosexuals don't breed and their kind don't survive. Religion is the tool of
    > survival par excellence and so must naturally come down against
    > homosexuality. On that basis alone... YES

    The notion that homosexuality must have negative survival value because "their kind"
    don't breed is quite naive. It has long been known that it may be advantageous for the
    survival & propagation of a certain gene pool for some members to sacrifice themselves -
    by dying to protect the community or otherwise forgoing breeding opportunities - for the
    benefit of close relatives. Sterile castes of termites, bees &c, can contribute to the
    survival of their relatives & thus further the survival of "their" genes. Whether or
    not homosexuals can &/or do contribute to the survival & propagation of related
    genotypes (siblings, cousins &c) can certainly be debated, but the question can't be
    decided just on the basis of whether or not they themselves breed.


    George L. Murphy

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Wed Mar 19 2003 - 12:58:33 EST