 | | Re: gay by birth vs. gay by choice —Dave Schuler
|
| | | In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Christopher L. Weeks writes: **snip of lots of sensible things** I hate to post a "me too," but Chris and I are so seldom in 100% agreement that I thought it was worth mentioning. Bravo to you, Chris, for a (...) (23 years ago, 3-Dec-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | |
| | | | | Re: gay by birth vs. gay by choice —Christopher Tracey
|
| | | | (...) Although I'm far from being a homophobe, I too would have to assert that heterosexuality would have to be our 'default' setting just for needs of basic continuation of the species. Wasn;t there a hypothesis at one time that homosexuality ws (...) (23 years ago, 4-Dec-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: gay by birth vs. gay by choice —Jennifer Clark
|
| | | | (...) I wonder - does "most frequently obsevered" (or perhaps most frequently admitted to?) equate to "default" ? Jennifer (23 years ago, 4-Dec-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: gay by birth vs. gay by choice —Christopher Tracey
|
| | | | (...) No, it does doesn't. Pattern does usually follow process though. It would have to be the default(1). The only ones who matter(2) in evolution are the ones who reproduce, so therefore how can it be that we should incapable of reproduction? (...) (23 years ago, 5-Dec-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: gay by birth vs. gay by choice —Dave Low
|
| | | | (...) But genes that inhibit reproduction _can_ be inherited, recessively. Cf cystic fibrosis (without treatment sufferers die before puberty). (...) Try a little google search for "homosexual bonobo". My thoughts, such as they are: I think the "why (...) (23 years ago, 5-Dec-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: gay by birth vs. gay by choice —Christopher Tracey
|
| | | | | (...) True. That would not fit the requirements of a default setting for the gay-gene though. (...) I do know of the cases. I'm looking for a different pattern, not sure how to fit it into words. (...) Did humans evolve in an environment that would (...) (23 years ago, 5-Dec-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: gay by birth vs. gay by choice —Dave Low
|
| | | | | | (...) I'm not sure I follow you -- why couldn't a gay-gene be maintained in a heterozygote sub-population, like many other recessive traits? (...) Well give it a go!! But given the lack of extant ancestor species, apes seem like the best bet for (...) (23 years ago, 5-Dec-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | Re: gay by birth vs. gay by choice —Richie Dulin
|
| | | | | In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Low writes: [snip] (...) Asked and answered ;-) (...) 'Cause then we'd be giving birth in winter, which wouldn't be real wise :-) Cheers Richie (23 years ago, 5-Dec-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | Sex (was: gay by birth vs. gay by choice) —Christopher L. Weeks
|
| | | | (...) Not all of us should be incapable of reproduction. Obviously that would be bad. However, the ability to generate, attract, and/or use the assistance of those (whomever/however) who don't reproduce would be a valuable survival strategy. If (...) (23 years ago, 6-Dec-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
