I've been arguing with a Christian about the theory of evolution...

I've been arguing with a Christian about the theory of evolution. He claims that it's false because otherwise homosexuality would've stopped existing long ago, since homosexuals can't reproduce.
How can I counter his argument? Should I say that homosexuality is learned behavior and not biological?

Recessive genes, mothers behavior during pregnancy can lead to the baby being exposed to hormones differently and thus cause it that way, and lots of gay people were having sex and starting families before the 1960's because they had to in order to live a normal life without being persecuted.

Homosexuality is the evolution. In the future men's butts will be able to carry pregnancies and women's saliva glands will produce semen.

Simple science really.

they can, especially women who may be raped by heterosexual males. Also many genes are latent, so they only pop up under certain conditions. Like downs syndrome, most downs syndrome people are sterile and born of regular-people parents, but there is a genetic inheritable component, that can increase the chances of having a downs child.
So while your friends arguments seems reasonable, under closer inspection it falls apart.

"Homosexual sex does not lead to reproduction" is distinct from "homosexuals can't reproduce". Also, bisexuality exists, and the prevalence of exclusive homosexuality may be partially a culturally-enforced thing.

Or it's a recessive gene that can appear in people who both had straight parents.

This is what happens when you let people educated in theology act like biology experts.
Christianity doesn't speak directly that there could not be such thing as evolving organisms, just the scenario where this all happend by pure coincidence and not by God's intervention.
It's all in the first sentence of bible.

You can, and you'd be substantially correct (witness the different cultural interpretations of what constitutes 'homosexual' behaviour and the phenomenon of being 'prison gay'), but I doubt it'd win you the argument. It's pretty obvious your christian friend just wanted to turn the discussion toward homosexuality to test the waters with you, so just take the plunge and fuck already.

On a more serious note, I would argue that the 'homosexuality is an inborn trait' argument only gained prominence in the ebb of the radicalisation of the 60's. Back then gays had the political confidence to demand basic human respect regardless of their behaviour. As the radicalisation rolled back and neoliberalism took hold, gays retreated to the pathological explanations of homosexuality prevalent in the more conservative 50's. This was an attempt to gain sympathy for their 'inborn' (pathological) state, as they had lost the political confidence as a bloc to demand real respect. The perspective gained strength as upper-middle class gays started to openly integrate into the ruling class. After all, it's not reasonable to deny someone the chance to be porky based solely on the presence of some incurable non-intellectual genetic flaw. It's notable that despite the apparently rock-solid faith that there must be some pathological explanation for homosexuality, no actual scientific evidence for it has come to light.

when I think about it downs syndrome is not the best example since it's most commonly not a heritable trait. The heritable factor is Chromosomal trans-location, which only account for a small number of downs syndrome chases.

I always read this and it definitely seems plausible, can you provide me with source?

The idea that one is born to like specific traits is just ridiculous.

god it was a while ago that i first read the argument, maybe it was in sherry wolf's sexuality and socialism? i know i'll cop a bunch of greentext for daring to recommend an iso trot writer or whatever, but this was written during their 'fight the idpol, liberation through class struggle' phase before their college membership base forced them to cave to idpol

Homosexuality is almost certainly (at least mostly) biologically rooted. Genetics often go far beyond simple Mendalian explanations, especially when observing more complex organisms: depending on the nature of a given trait in question, behaviors of gene expression leading to that trait can vary wildly and can often lead to instances where abnormal phenotypes go unexpressed for multiple generations.

There's also the fact that we're not talking about mundane traits that can be controlled by only one or a few genes. To put it simply, human behavior is a complex mess of biochemical interactions that enlists the expression of countless number of gene products at varying levels of expression. There is likely a whole spectrum of changes (both genetic and epigenetic) that can result in a person showing homosexual tendencies (and varying degrees of exclusivity in that behavior) rather than it being one specific change that can be described as the "gay trait" that could simply be "bred out of the genepool."

Realistically, you aren't going to get anywhere debating with someone who is emotionally invested in religion by coming at them with facts. They've already decided to discard all facts that can be twisted to fit their worldview.

That said, an interesting line of investigation here is the link between children who are sexually abused, and then go on to abuse children as adults, as well as children who are sexually abused by an adult of the same sex, and then go on to identify as gay. From what I've read on the subject, subjecting children to sexual stimuli during their formative years can warp/alter their sexual preference. I've talked to a lot of people who can trace their "weird" fetishes back to an experience in their pre-teen years.

On the other hand, there are also children that are born that way, so the "definitive" answer seems to be that kids can either be born that way, or shaped via experiences while their brains are developing.

Science will become heterosexualism obsolete.

"THE APPENDIX IS PROOF THAT EVOLUTION IS BULLSHIT!!"

For real though gay people have different hormonal levels in their brains and partially female brain structures all together. Learn 2 materialism fag.

materialism doesn't automatically imply that homosexuality has an inborn basis tho. an equally materialist argument is that a person's sexuality is shaped by their life experiences and current circumstances. that argument would also put homosexuality on a par with all other paraphilias, instead of existing in its own separate little inborn behavioural camp away from practically every other sexual behaviour

So god made homosexuals?

Tell them that they can reproduce and that his religion and its gay-hate forced all gay people, male and female, to act like they werent gay, having families and kids, spreading their faggot genes.

Also thats not being gay works. He has a retard-tier understand of how evolution works.

Gay uncle theory

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

...

Actually it turns out that pedophiles actually lack white matter in certain key areas of the brain this leading them to become pedophiles. It is therefore safe to assume that nearly all human behavior can be boiled down to brain structure and hormone levels.

You are a meat computer stop kidding yourself.

Look up Finnius Gauge.

...

Finnius Gauge simply didn't have the capacity/hardware to be his restrained self, not that his personality changed

Like clockwork.

wew lad

not even Marx was that type of materialist as you

I am not marx, dumbfuck. I dont give a damn if marx had stupid ideas about magic sky people living in the clouds.


Being "idealistic" IE believing things without any proof at all only makes you stupid.

Regular Computers built by Meat Computers…. Meat Computers built by God?

i'm not doubting that we're all meat computers what is it with people and taking the things i say to ridiculous conclusions

i'm just saying that the meat computer is a learning computer, and prior inputs have an effect on future outputs in the same way the architecture does. every aspect of our personality isn't determined at birth you doofus

Plus that is not what idealism is…

There are a number of ways that a population having homosexual members could be beneficial for the species. For example, it theoretically could be a natural method of population control, when the population begins to become too dense for its territory having members less likely to reproduce would be an advantage. There are plenty of species with separate classes that have non-reproductive roles.

yes, lie to him

will kaz ever update ?

...

Oh hi skyscraper retard.

Yes you are correct that not all behavior is determined by innate things about ourselves and we are effected by our environment but sexuality is definitely in the innate category.

Look at any trap thread and tell me those people don't have heightened levels of estrogen.

With that argument he has to concede that God created homosexuals on purpose.

But to answer your question homosexuality in males correlates with abnormally high estrogen exposure in utero. There are xenoestrogens in hair and skincare products, moisturizers, plastics, plastic foams, pesticides, insecticides, timed-release capsules, antibiotics, laundry and dish detergents, preservatives, and so on. So homosexuality exists because you still haven't bought Alex Jones' ProPur™ water filters.

...

This might definitely explain why homosexuality is seemingly less common in rural environments.

skyscraper retard? i don't get it, but i suppose i'm a retard. also skyscrapers.

what makes you think sexuality is necessarily an innate category? lots of people describe their formative sexual experiences happening during childhood or puberty

hell, lots of imageboard bis, gays, and traps swear up and down that participating in the sexually fluid culture of the imageboards turned them gay. not to mention the historically attested turn to gayness of sailors and prisoners

also yeah ill freely admit that people in the trap threads have heightened estrogen - they're taking fucking estrogen pills, it would be weird for them not to have heightened estrogen

Lower population densities means that anything that deviates from the norm tends to be harder to find.
This is statistics 101.
There's also the fact that rural homosexuals tend to migrate to urban areas which ends up creating an artificial scarcity of sorts. Butthat's a thread for another time.

other equally plausible explanations: smaller sample size, self-segregating populations (tons of gays move to the city precisely so they can escape their stifling rural upbringing), lying about their sexuality, decreased chance of exposure to homosexual experiences during formative years, etc