From: John Burgeson (email@example.com)
Date: Wed Mar 19 2003 - 16:46:50 EST
>>I think I've been on the ASA list for about 7 years now & this has got to
funniest "argument" I've yet seen posted on it.
Second funniest, I'd claim. I've (thankfully) forgotten the name but I still
remember the SPOG guy from a couple of years ago.
>From: George Murphy <firstname.lastname@example.org>
>CC: email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org
>Subject: Re: Ken Ham
>Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2003 12:57:58 -0500
> > 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
> > the prohibitions are Jerry Springer guests.
>I think I've been on the ASA list for about 7 years now & this has got to
>funniest "argument" I've yet seen posted on it.
> > Decisions on homosexuality can be made on the basis of reproductive
> > Homosexuals don't breed and their kind don't survive. Religion is the
> > 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
>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
>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.
>not homosexuals can &/or do contribute to the survival & propagation of
>genotypes (siblings, cousins &c) can certainly be debated, but the question
>decided just on the basis of whether or not they themselves breed.
>George L. Murphy
Help STOP SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE*
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Wed Mar 19 2003 - 16:46:59 EST