Subject:
|
Re: gay by birth vs. gay by choice
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Wed, 5 Dec 2001 00:43:45 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
301 times
|
| |
|
|
Jennifer Clark wrote:
> I wonder - does "most frequently obsevered" (or perhaps most frequently
> admitted to?) equate to "default" ?
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? Besides, we should see this showing
up throughout our phylogeny (at least recent)- I don't think it does.
Some of us seem to be stuck on homosexuality being a favorable life
history? Am I missing something? Is there something I can say to
explain this better?
-chris
1- actually, it doesn't. one could suppose that we are supposed to be
gay but the vast majarity end up with this wierd 'gene' called
heterosexuality that allows us to to reproduce. i don't know.. prove me
wrong.
2- that's debatable as well, probably beyond the scope of this group
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: gay by birth vs. gay by choice
|
| (...) 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)
|
Message is in Reply To:
97 Messages in This Thread:
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
