So? Are people like apple trees now? Or do you consider fruitless plants like...roses, to be abominations too? Huh? HUH!?

P.S.: Yes, it's SUPPOSED to be stupid.:dunce

You're right MacLeon what this world needs is more people!

And don't act like you've never felt the urge to give a guy a good cornholing.;):orgasm
We know all your secrets.

lol so all your points are about how it states in the bible that it's wrong...so where does that leave an atheist like me? convince ME....i have no problem with homosexuality and many of my friends are either gay or bi....i'd really like to hear your opinions on that.

Hey, you know "Bare Fruit"? They make awesome natural dried apple snacks!

I have a lot of problems with homosexuality

Serious problems?

I missed you Pub, can I have gay love with you now?

But a book written 50 years after the death of a carpenter who has been dead for more than 2000 years is bound to be true!
Why? Because the bible says it is, of course!

Why? Homosexuality is easy!

So I've heard ....

Yeah, those things are unbeneficial to the organism of the species carrying the gene, but what if the gene was only passed down maternally, or only toggled on in the presence of other genes, or morphogens, or a number of other factors (understanding mechanisms of gene expression requires way too much math for my brain)

Here's a quote from Darwin:

"Although a high standard of morality gives but a slight or no advantage to each individual man and his children over the other men of the same tribe...an advancement in the standard of morality will certainly give an immense advantage to one tribe over another."

So, the notion of group selection isn't new (even though it's been taboo I guess since the 60's.) but what we know now about genes is that they are far more complex than a simple input-output function.

I think a useful way to understand evolution is the fact that you have groups that are divided by both geographical and ecological boundaries. These boundaries get blurred either by migration, or by scarcity, when selection pressures laterally compress co-existing niches.

derrida said: "Blah fart"
Translation!

I SOUND SMART TALKING ABOUT IRRELEVANT THINGS.

Guys I don't know if you're aware of this but generally we don't rely on what is genetically prominent to find out what's morally right or wrong. IN fact sometimes that is considered a GENETIC FALLACY and it's gay so shut the fuck up.

So like a tribe of pacifists will have an ADVANTAGE over a tribe over aggresors who like to kill pacifists? So does that mean aggressively killing pacifists is moral or something like that?

Morality here clearly has to be understood as it has generally been understood throughout most of human history; doing good for your friends and harm to your enemies, which I guess is more like justice than morality as such, but still I think that's basically what we're talking about here. That kind of morality (=justice) is basically advantageous for any particular group; it's just that the concept of populations as a unit that is selected for in terms of biological evolution is tough to grasp. The way I always saw it was that the populations provided something like a context for the evolution of different genes within the population, but I never really got that far along in biology I suppose.

You raise a good point in general about the complexity of gene expression, I guess if we can't really know how genes get expressed that could say a lot about how much we can know about how genes get selected for. Makes talking about evolutionary biology and behaviour pretty complicated for sure.

As for kahljorn; I think what we're talking about here is a descriptive account of how 'morality' came to be, we're not trying to justify anything on the basis of it's origins, which I think is what you mean by the genetic fallacy. Like I said earlier, the morality we're talking about is doing good to your friends and harm to your enemies, not a philosophically sophisticated morality, but certainly a prominent one in human history. It is an opinion about what is right and wrong whose origins can be traced to evolutionary biology, tracing the origins of something is not the same as justifying it by those origins. But that doesn't mean we can just forget about nature and say that it's all just meaningless epiphenomena, the nature (=origins) of human things (like morality) is still important to understanding and dealing with them. Like this bad morality that evolution gave us; just because Plato showed what was wrong with it about 2000 years ago (and any reasonable person can see what's wrong with it on their own anyway) doesn't mean that it's gone away, so living with the biological reality of (biologically) evolved morality remains important.

I've been rambling, so let me just get to the point: being gay is gross.

Basically all you guys are saying is that certain types of moralities and societies propagate certain types of "People" or genes. So what? Thanks for wasting anybody who is reading this threads time.

Through genes, right? Genes created morality? lol just kidding. OR AM I?

I guess you're right about the genetic fallacy. I just wanted to mention it because where this argument comes from is something that relies on it's genes to justify it.
What you guys are doing is more like a red herring and bringing up irrelevant shit that has nothing to do with it for god knows what reason. What purpose does derrida have for bringing this up other than to be gay? He's just responding to some gay faggots point that the gay gene could be bred out and trying to show it won't necessarily be so - but that has nothing to do with morality. Not even the "origins of morality." I think you misunderstand derrida's gayness.

and all that relies on the notion that homosexuality is explicitely genetic and not environmental anyway.

Real morality begins when you start questioning who are your friends and what is a benefit and a harm ;/ i dont know I guess i just think you guys are talking out of your ass and not really adding anything to the conversation.

Talking about the morality of gayness is boring anyway

So is the genetics of gayness. Especially considering there's not even any proof that gayness is genetic.

If gayness is genetic, it doesn't matter, as it won't be passed down anyway.:rolleyes

Honestly, people, this is way more than any thread started by KK deserves.

only if you repeat it or enjoy it

I guess listening to derrida talk buttholes would've been worth destroying this eyerolable joke :rolleyes

Okay, first of all, screwing gay guys isn't wrong if you like to do it. Screwing UGLY gay guys is TOTALY IMMORAL because it's unnatural to be okay with screwing someone who us ugly. Why do you think we are made so that ugly people tend to revolt us physically? Because it's wrong.

Same goes for fat gay people, and your darker black skinned homos, and any fag at all with a limb missing. What the fuck is wrong with you if you want that?

Any girl at all is pretty much fair game unless they are horrendously ugly or so fat you can't find where to go or are missing more than one limb, but you have to draw the line somewhere, so next time you're doing it, look at your partner and make a truthful guess as to just how close to the line you are getting. Pretty close isn't wrong, but it's not a good sign.

I hope this helped.

OH! DO NOT screw animals at all. Not even really super cute ones.

Oh, also?

Guy with the dark red font?

I cannot read a single word you wrote. I mean, sure, you can when you look at it, because you already know what you wrote, but have a heart, okay? It's totally wrong that I don't know what you have to say in this thread, it's like I'm missing a whole part of the conversation, and that's fucked up. No offense. Probably nobody told you but I guess I'm just the asshole around here, but it's only because if your posting I want what you say to be hear as that is the point. So it's all good.

Word.