Ken Maginnis

[SkStu]

In fact, bananas exist to make more bananas. They are a product of natural selection. It just so happens that the most effective way for old-timey bananas to make more bananas was to be eaten by animals and have their seeds spread, so evolution dragged them in that direction.


Procreation is one of the core purposes of human sex, in the sense that anything has a purpose. However, "purpose" and "nature" don't reveal anything about morality. Humans have moved beyond just being creatures of instinct and self-preservation.

Incidentally, there are a lot of theories about how homosexuality has been beneficial in an evolutionary sense. They range from maintaining a critical mass of productive adults in a family unit without overloading things with kids, to research that suggests that the sisters of homosexuals are more fertile than women in the general population, hinting at some sort of genetic predisposition that is carried through the female lineage. It's interesting stuff.



Evolution is driven by random mutations, but it is itself not a random process. Lots of things are like this. Take the atmosphere as a (poor) example. Each individual atom or molecule in the air is moving at random, however, the fact that the atmosphere as a whole sticks there on the earth's surface is far from random.

Great post thanks. The bit in bold is the essence of the point I was trying to make with Danny originally.

And thanks Osarusan for clarifying my intent about who is eating the feckin banana...

[osarusan]

Thread of the year.

Ken Maginnis, gay sex, bananas, and those fecking electrons.

[DannyInvincible]

Great post thanks. The bit in bold is the essence of the point I was trying to make with Danny originally.

But it's still a "purpose" assigned to it by certain conscious beings. The objective reality is that that isn't actually a purpose, but an effect. I think Peadar agreed with this, unless I misinterpreted post #28.

Thread of the year.

Ken Maginnis, gay sex, bananas, and those fecking electrons.

That conjures up quite an image!

[BonnieShels]

Ken Maginnis did what to a bonobo with a banana?

[Gather round]

Thread of the year.

Ken Maginnis, gay sex, bananas, and those fecking electrons

Agreed. Ken must think all you papish pooftahs are bananas.

[Macy]

Agreed. Ken must think all you papish pooftahs are bananas.

Surely papists would agree with him, given the RC position?

[DannyInvincible]

What is the official position of the Catholic Church on homosexual behaviour? I think they view it as defying some supposed natural law (whatever they imagine that might be...), but I'm not so sure they would use terminology such as "offensive" or "abominable" to describe such behaviour, at least officially anyway. In fact, my understanding is that homosexual desires are not construed as sinful, but rather it is the homosexual act that is viewed to be sinful.

[Macy]

What is the official position of the Catholic Church on homosexual behaviour? I think they view it as defying some supposed natural law (whatever they imagine that might be...), but I'm not so sure they would use terminology such as "offensive" or "abominable" to describe such behaviour, at least officially anyway. In fact, my understanding is that homosexual desires are not construed as sinful, but rather it is the homosexual act that is viewed to be sinful.

Dancing on the head of a pin stuff. They fought to get (and got) schools (of which they control 92%) exempt from equality legislation, so they can carry on discriminating. Who's first out of the traps when it comes to opposing gay marriage, gay couple adoptions etc? If not the Church, their fundamentalist supporters. Cut from the same cloth, just maybe a bit more PR savvy than other Christian churches on this island.