Subject:
|
Re: gay by birth vs. gay by choice
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Wed, 5 Dec 2001 02:59:14 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1533 times
|
| |
|
|
Dave Low wrote:
>
> 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).
True. That would not fit the requirements of a default setting for the
gay-gene though.
> > 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".
I do know of the cases. I'm looking for a different pattern, not sure
how to fit it into words.
> 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?
Did humans evolve in an environment that would favor seasonal
reproduction? I'm not sure but I suspect the answer is a more or less
'no'. Chris Weeks, myself and a few others had a discussion bordering
on recreational sex probably two years ago in this group. I don't
remember what we came up with.
-chris
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: gay by birth vs. gay by choice
|
| (...) 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 (...) (25 years ago, 5-Dec-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | 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 (...) (25 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
|
|
|
|
