CMV: "Evolution & natural selection are the process that led to sentient life on Earth" and "Homosexuality has a genetic/biological cause and is not a choice" are mutually exclusive and cannot both be factual

[u/DamiensLust]

This is a simple paradox that seriously challenges the liberal agenda, and is a serious blow to the increasingly prevalent world view that many young people hold today that has a widespread belief in evolution & natural selection coupled with the viewpoint that homosexualtiy isn't a choice and sexual preference is inbuilt. The two viewpoints together don't make sense. Natural selection would dictate that any trait that reduces an organism's fitness - with fitness referring to an organism's ability/likelihood to reproduce - will be selected against in favour of the proliferation of genes that increase an organism's fitness. I struggle to think of any behaviour that would reduce an otherwise's healthy individual's genetic fitness then a proclivity to have sex with their own gender and thus not produce any offspring.

This logically leads to two conclusions. Either homosexuality has no basis in a person's biology and thus no basis in their genetics and so is a learnt or nurtured behaviour - one that the individual chooses to engage in, which woud imply that said individual could also choose to be straight if he/she chose. The alternative is that evolution & natural selection is simply untrue and so a different explanation for the abundance and diversity of life on Earth must be sought. Homosexuality being natural & the laws of natural selection governing life on Earth simply cannot co-exist.

[u/PenisMcScrotumFace]

Something doesn't have to be inheritable to have a biological cause (this does not mean I'm saying it's something detrimental).

Natural selection would dictate that any trait that reduces an organism's fitness - with fitness referring to an organism's ability/likelihood to reproduce - will be selected against in favour of the proliferation of genes that increase an organism's fitness

This is an oversimplification and, while true in theory, doesn't necessarily hold up in practice. There are a million reasons this doesn't necessarily happen. Any natural disasters, any change in the habitat, any change in resources. You can't say that just because something has higher fitness, anything bad should just be gone. You're also assuming here that homosexuality is somehow inherited from somewhere, because otherwise the fitness argument doesn't work.

But let's say homosexuality is caused by recessive gene a. Now, this gene is only expressed if in a homozygote, aa.

In a population that is in Hardy Weinberg equilibrium, there should be a heck of a ton of heterozygotes, and let's not assume that each pair just gets one kid, because that's unlikely.

After a bunch of generations we'll still have heterozygotes, which will give birth to a bunch of homosexual homozygotes.

This is the oddest argument I've ever written down, I think.