Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Sharks in the Septic Tank -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: TH who wrote (2443)	1/23/2001 1:28:12 AM
From: epicure	Respond to of 82486

You know, society and it's evolution, are certainly part of nature if you define the system that way.

To: TH who wrote (2443)	1/23/2001 5:38:00 AM
From: Dayuhan	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

You seem to be saying here that a biological imperative is synonymous with a grand design. Whose design? Aren't you assuming something that has yet to be demonstrated? Monogamy gives less competitive males the chance to reproduce, threatening the viability of the species. This is in clear opposition to the biological imperative, or, as you would style it, the "grand design". Yet we accept monogamy as "normal". If we are willing to accept one behaviour pattern as normal in spite of its opposition to the biological imperative, we cannot logically declare another behaviour pattern "abnormal" for that same reason. Your comments/question is not essential to the basic premise of the goal of nature. Absolutely not. The system of reproductive competition, removing inferior or defective genetic material from the gene pool, is an essential part of nature's strategy for the survival of our species. Subverting that goal is at least as detrimental to nature's design as acceptance of homosexuality. Homosexuals make up a relatively small, and relatively constant, portion of the population. They are unlikely to reproduce, and therefore make no positive contribution toward the propagation of the species, but they do not pose any detriment to the species. Nature's plan assumes - indeed requires - that certain individuals do not reproduce, reproduction being the prerogative of the most competitive individuals. Homosexuals simply join the pool of non-reproductive individuals, and have a neutral effect on the future of the species. Monogamy, on the other hand, directly obstructs the dispersal of the most competitive genetic material, and is clearly detrimental to nature's plan for the improvement of the species. It is a highly abnormal state, by your definition of normality.