Subject:
|
Re: gay by birth vs. gay by choice
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Wed, 5 Dec 2001 02:40:35 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
315 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Christopher Tracey writes:
> Jennifer Clark wrote:
> > I wonder - does "most frequently obsevered" (or perhaps most frequently
> > admitted to?) equate to "default" ?
>
> 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?
But genes that inhibit reproduction _can_ be inherited, recessively. Cf
cystic fibrosis (without treatment sufferers die before puberty).
> Besides, we should see this showing
> up throughout our phylogeny (at least recent)- I don't think it does.
Try a little google search for "homosexual bonobo".
My thoughts, such as they are:
I think the "why would I choose to be gay?" argument is very difficult to
refute, given the widespread social disapproval of homosexuality. That's not
to exclude the possibility of choice, or bisexuality though: humans are
pretty adaptable and inventive creatures. I suspect a lot of it has to do
with how keen or fussy an individual is, together with their position on the
straight/gay spectrum.
I think the evolutionary advantage of recreational sex is relevant too. Why
do people have sex year round for fun? If God meant us to exclusively
reserve sex for procreation, why not save it for springtime?
// Dave
|
|
Message has 3 Replies:
 | | Re: gay by birth vs. gay by choice
|
| (...) 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)
| | | Sex (was: gay by birth vs. gay by choice)
|
| (...) 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)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: gay by birth vs. gay by choice
|
| (...) 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)
|
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
|
|
|
|
