Subject:
|
Sex (was: gay by birth vs. gay by choice)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 6 Dec 2001 15:34:08 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
302 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Low writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Christopher Tracey writes:
> > The only ones who matter in evolution are the ones who reproduce,
> > so therefore how can it be that we should incapable of reproduction?
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 there are several competing tribes in a closed system and only
one of them is accepting of homosexuals, then the homosexuals migrate over time
to that tribe, concentrating the genes of the reproducers and providing more
resources (gathered by the homosexuals) to the offspring increasing survival.
Also, if the genes or whatever that cause homosexuality or infertility also
cause an impulse to help or harm a certain kind of peer, then those
nonreproductive members are influencing the local evolution.
> 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.
I think that I am attracted to positions of social difficulty. It is rarely
concious, but I'm pretty sure that my life has been dramatically shaped by
choosing to swim against the current. It seems easy to imagine that this
_could_ manifest as a move toward homosexuality, even if it didn't in me. Some
people thrive under stresses that other people crumble under, and those people
aren't happy when they're happy. If you get my meaning.
Though I tend to agree that this logic directs away from people actively
conciously choosing to be homosexual. I suspect that it's usually decided
before people are aware of such possibilities.
In this particular conversation, it doesn't seem like anyone has presented that
we're all just lying somewhere on the bisexual continuum. I know people
present this notion fairly regularly. It also seems that women fall farther
bisexual than men. I wonder if that's due to our social circumstance, or our
nature. Does anyone know the sexual anthropology to address this?
> I think the evolutionary advantage of recreational sex is relevant too. Why
> do people have sex year round for fun?
I'm presently thinking that sex is a highly social activity. That we build
interpersonal bonds through sexual expression and that this kind of sex is
probably seriously accountable for our rise to primacy. This is part of why I
question the value of monogamy, though it would seem that there must be some
value for it to be so widespread.
> If God meant us to exclusively
> reserve sex for procreation, why not save it for springtime?
Or late summer.
Chris
|
|
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 (...) (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
|
|
|
|
