Subject:
|
Re: gay by birth vs. gay by choice
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Wed, 5 Dec 2001 03:46:13 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
339 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Christopher Tracey writes:
> > >
> > > 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.
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?
> > > 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.
Well give it a go!! But given the lack of extant ancestor species, apes seem
like the best bet for phylogenetic comparison. What other sort of pattern
are you looking for?
> > 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.
That's one heck of a discussion! Especially considering the constraints of a
newsgroup!
Even if there were ecological reasons for constant oestrus, it might be
reinforced/conserved through social evolution. I thought this piece (again
on the bonobos) was really good: gives the patriarchal Natural Law argument
a good stir too.
http://www.catholiclesbians.org/archives/bonobos.html
// Dave
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | 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)
|
97 Messages in This Thread:
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
