Plenty of scope for annoyance there I should think.
Yes indeed, though I don't think I'll be bothering to listen to JM making an utter fool of himself once again.
To mistake the significance of classical music with that of religion is the mistake of cultural liberals.
So... you mean... Macmillan is sounding off against these liberals but in reality he actually IS one? The plot thickens.
Just because a particular kind of behaviour doesn't directly result in reproduction doesn't imply that it's "working against reproduction".
No, though the latter might be judged a subset of the former, and even the most sophistical might have difficulty arguing that homosexuality doesn't 'work against reproduction'.
I don't agree, and I don't think it requires any sophistry at all. One factor behind the flourishing of a population of organisms (and therefore genes) may be the presence of a certain
variability in that population which is of benefit in some way to the population as a whole - even though it might involve some members of the population not reproducing - and therefore that variability itself would be selected for by evolution. Of course it isn't clear what place homosexuality might have in such a scheme, but the factors involved are fantastically complicated. However, to see examples of non-reproducing individuals having arisen through natural selection (and therefore being of benefit to the propagation of the genes of the population, rather than "working against reproduction") you only need to look at bees.
