DiscussMormonism.com

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20081229/posner

"[Rick] Warren, a creationist, believes that homosexuality disproves evolution; he told CNN's Larry King in 2005, "If Darwin was right, which is survival of the fittest then homosexuality would be a recessive gene because it doesn't reproduce and you would think that over thousands of years that homosexuality would work itself out of the gene pool."



Way to go, Obama! You picked a freekin' neanderthal to pray at your big day. Now all the evangelicals can say "mission accomplished".

The Dude wrote:http://www.thenation.com/doc/20081229/posner

"[Rick] Warren, a creationist, believes that homosexuality disproves evolution; he told CNN's Larry King in 2005, "If Darwin was right, which is survival of the fittest then homosexuality would be a recessive gene because it doesn't reproduce and you would think that over thousands of years that homosexuality would work itself out of the gene pool."

That leaves intelligent design as the likely culprit.

Conversely, evolution could prove homosexuality not genetic or otherwise inborn.

The Dude wrote:http://www.thenation.com/doc/20081229/posner

"[Rick] Warren, a creationist, believes that homosexuality disproves evolution; he told CNN's Larry King in 2005, "If Darwin was right, which is survival of the fittest then homosexuality would be a recessive gene because it doesn't reproduce and you would think that over thousands of years that homosexuality would work itself out of the gene pool."



Way to go, Obama! You picked a freekin' neanderthal to pray at your big day. Now all the evangelicals can say "mission accomplished".

Then what's his explanation for ugly people?

bcspace wrote:Conversely, evolution could prove homosexuality not genetic or otherwise inborn.

That's slightly less ridiculous than what Rick Warren said, but it is based on the same simplistic understanding of genes and reproduction. But at least you are leaving it there and not trying to elevate it into a disproof of evolution.

Here is the problem:

You think homosexuality cannot be genetic because it would not persist in the human population. But the same genes that would seem bad for reproduction when present in homosexuals of one gender could enhance reproduction when present in heterosexuals of the opposite gender. The sum effect determines how well a gene persists in the population. There is evidence for heritable androphilia that affects homosexual behavior in males but enhances child bearing in females.

Yong Xi must be right about what Rick Warren thinks. If homosexuality is genetic and only has a negative impact on reproductive behavior of gays (which is naïve and demonstrably false), then natural selection should have culled it from the gene pool a long time ago. This appears to be incompatible with evolution (only with respect to this gene, by the way), but how then does the gay gene persist? Why, it must be constantly created anew by the intelligent designer. Or possibly by a conspiracy of gay OB/GYNs with control over their patients' DNA. (That's probably what Jeremiah Wright thinks.)

The Dude wrote:Way to go, Obama! You picked a freekin' neanderthal to pray at your big day. Now all the evangelicals can say "mission accomplished"..

Dude, exactly. I can't see this ending superbly. This is going to be Jimmy Carter all over again.

I would have liked to see wright in place of this cheap circus tent televangelist Obama chose.

Joel Osteen has more Obama-style, I think. "Yes we can!"

You think homosexuality cannot be genetic because it would not persist in the human population.

I don't think that. It certainly can be a recurring abberation. I personally haven't seen anything to convince me it's genetic, but it does not matter if it is or not because of Ether 12:27

bcspace wrote:

You think homosexuality cannot be genetic because it would not persist in the human population.

I don't think that. It certainly can be a recurring abberation. I personally haven't seen anything to convince me it's genetic, but it does not matter if it is or not because of Ether 12:27

Because of "ether 12:27"? What a hokey way of looking at life.

Because of "ether 12:27"? What a hokey way of looking at life.

You're in the wrong business if you expect LDS to not use answers based in scripture.