[All-In Flynn]

[ QUOTE ]
Well, I "got" it from years of studying paleoanthropology in college and teaching genetics and evolutionary theory. Where do your ideas come from?

[/ QUOTE ]

My 'ideas', which if you actually look are in fact questions, come from curiosity. Every post you've made in this thread and the other has asked me to simply accept your (self-asserted) authority unquestioningly - can you please just take it as read that I don't?

So when I ask 'where are you getting this?' I am not asking for a resume, or what you do for a living. I am asking you what studies you can cite that unequivocally show (or even strongly imply) that the ideas you set forth actually exist in the real world. You have yet to do this - you have yet to even attempt this. And please accept that I'm not hostile to evidence - just lack of it. You're convinced of homosexuality's fitness and claim authority - you are in fact a teacher. Teach me!

[ QUOTE ]
We don't think of the genome and how it evolves in terms of individuals, but in terms of populations. One of the most positive forces for selective fitness, is controlling the number of individuals in the population because production and reproduction are so intertwined as to be almost indistinguishable from one another.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not sure what you mean by this - are you arguing for gayness as a population-size regulator? Very difficult to accept without resorting to group-selectionism. And if you're not arguing that, what exactly do you mean?

[ QUOTE ]
Ejecting gay persons from our families and communities is counter to reproductive success for the population as a whole.



Not anymore, by your own lights.


I have no idea what this means.

[/ QUOTE ]

Find that hard to believe. I mean that even if what you say is true of our primitive ancestors, the same does not hold true today. There is absolutely no reason to suppose that the disappearance tomorrow of all forms of homosexuality would in any way reduce our reproductive fitness, not by any model presented - even if that model is valid. And your very argument is that gayness contributed at least at one time to reproductive fitness. Pretty basic, and it was just a comment. I only felt the need to re-iterate homophobia's moral repugnance because I am very sure many people here - you included - suspect me of some unstated anti-gay agenda. The (deleted) part of your first repsonse about 'minding my own business' made that pretty clear.