Where would Darwin be on the gay marriage debate?

M

maddog

New member
Darwin "noted that successful species produce more offspring in each generation than are needed to replace the adults who die . . . The species would thus have changed or evolved to favor traits that favor survival and reproduction. Those that cannot reproduce die off.

So, in Darwin's words, a species that cannot produce offspring is weaker and will soon die off and give way to a stronger, more adaptable species.

As far as evolution goes, why would anyone encourage a relationship that results in mass extinction?
Dan-when a question is posed most try and answer it.
Seldon-nice try in avoiding the question and Darwin's conclusions.
Funny how the libs love Darwin until he contradicts their logic.
 
good question. as homosexuality exisits in many species, it certainly is not acondiiton that leads to the downfall of a species, but for some reason, the trait is still present. maybe it serves to funnel off some breeders to slow population growth?
 
Darwin Put forth an amazing Theory that captured the minds of the scientists of his day and still does today. However, Charles Darwins theory of evolution has flaws and more than that is constanty misinterpreted.

One of the problems with the Above quote that scientists have since left behind is if species are suppose to evolve in the most survive able form then why did species like neandertal man become extinct? Why do human not have twins every pregnancy or triplets or even a litter?

The are a great deal of species on the earth today that if we adhere to Darwins Theory of evolution, should no longer roaming the earth and a great deal of extinct species that should.

-Practicing Catholic who believes in evolution

EDIT: Leave Seldon alone. He and I Answer a lot of the same questions with COMPLETELY opposite view points. I always enjoy the balance of his perspective. I would NEVER give him a thumbs down for that reason.
 
against it and he would have died laughing at people who are not helping their people survive think they are SO important in the grand scheme of things. Science shows they are not....
 
So you support taking away marriage rights from infertile couples and elderly couples who can no longer bear children?

Darwin's opinion on gay marriage (if he had one) would be irrelevant. This is about equal rights, not science. But then again, I think Darwin may have very well supported gay marriage. Did you ever think that maybe this is evolution's strategy for dealing with overpopulation? If the world becomes overpopulated, and our resources start to run out, then, scientifically speaking, gay marriage would start to look like a pretty practical idea, don't ya think?

EDIT: I answered your question as best I could. But the question itself can't be answered with any certainty anyway because Darwin is dead. For that reason, every answer you get on here will be speculative.
 
Like many Nazi's during the '40's, he would use the excuse that because they're "inferior" genetically, they shouldn't be allowed to marry, send them to concentration camps and gas them.

Seriously, that's basically how Hitler interpreted it.
 
Freak human evolution. The irony is that men that love men act like women (which they dislike) and women that love women act like men (which they dislike). It's mental mostly, when gay people follow their minds and change their body and sex desires. The body can not do surgery on itself, the mind has to force it to happen. And yes it would lead to extinction and disease of the homosexual species, just like cannibalism would. Darwin would throw up I'm sure. He would then chalk it up to" "Poor dumb humans won't last very long if they go that route".
 
Why would anyone waste their time fighting against something that really has no effect on them?

The whole world isn't gay. People are not going to go extinct due to a few homosexuals getting married. Not a big deal.

Really, people should be more concerned about important things.
 
Based on his theories he would have to label it a sexual aberration. When I say that homosexuality is abnormal people are aghast that I would use such a word, but when I explain it in biological terms they have nothing to say.
 
don't feel bad, most cons are scientifically illiterate, you're not alone.

the evolution of one gene or set of genes may have negative consequences, however, if the overall consequence is positive, then it survives.

sickle cell trait causes a debilitating illness, yet it offers selective resistance to malaria. In the end the malaria resistance was more important than death from sickle cell anemia, the malaria killed more frequently. So the mutated gene that produces sickle cell anemia survives in a population

in the same regard, mothers of gay men have been shown to be more fertile than average women, therefore, a survival disadvantage survives because it also produces a survival advantage that outweighs it.
 
darwin didn't even CONSIDER an either / or choice like you

if 10% of OUR species is gay, it is better for overpopulation concerns

or haven't you been paying attention for the last 50 years?
 
I never heard that about Darwin. But, from a reality standpoint, he would be mistaken if that were his position. Over procreation tends to have the opposite effect. Too many of the species means that the food source or other necessities will become too scarce and those species die off. He should have noted that from observing common things like lemmings.
 
Wow I love Darwin and Science
I'd say he'd be for gay marriage

Homosexuality is a 'back-fire' of Sexual-selection because it's a result of prenatal hormone distribution, and though it seems like a contradiction, they both compliment each other quite well.
I agree with Darwin's words that a species that has a lesser advantage to reproduce is weaker. However, there are people/animals born blind and deaf, and this is an incredible disadvantage, the blind-deaf being will most likely die in the wild before being able to reproduce. and technically your statement about encouraging relationships that result in 'mass extinction' makes no sense. If being blind-deaf serves a disadvantage to reproduction, (not that I believe in eugenics) it is more preferable for them not to pass these genes on, so you would be encouraging mass-extincting by forcing homosexuals into heterosexual relations by forcing them to pass on their genes. What makes humans different though is that we are more evolved and have higher thinking abilities than other animals this make us able to work around our disadvantages. For homosexual people, they are smart enough to know how reproduction works and can use insemination and surrogate mothering, and adoption to work around their disadvantage of reproduction. This is the same with other natural dispositions that serves a major disadvantage.
 
Back
Top