4 ms·
That argument would mean that non-reproducing people, particularly homosexuality (if you believe the "genetics" argument), would have been eliminated by now.
by reeses 18y ago
That argument would mean that non-reproducing people, particularly homosexuality (if you believe the "genetics" argument), would have been eliminated by now.
- skmurphy 18y agoNot if they contribute meaningfully to their siblings children's survival. Your argument also assumes that homosexuality is primarily determined by genetics and/or that they didn't father or bear children in spite of their orientation.
- reeses 18y agoThe part where I said "non-reproducing people" and "(if you believe the "genetics" argument)" cover what you said. You refute your original argument with your first sentence.
- skmurphy 18y agoTo contribute meaningfully to their siblings children's survival would normally take place before they are 40.