I've got an idea, it will take a lot of patience but for it to work out correctly, we need to remove all bias and social stigma from being gay. This way, gay people won't feel like they have to get into a heterosexual marriage and have children just to be "normal". If we let this go on 100 years or so, we should be able to assure that no gay people have procreated in that time frame. If being gay is genetic, there should be no gay people left by then. If there are, we then we'll know it must be social only.
On Mon, 18 Oct 2004 15:02:23 -0400, Angel Stewart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > ... > How can co-operation and social involvement with social animals, let's say Apes, > carry forward genetic material? > If they aren't mating with the opposite sex how can their genetic material be > carried forward? > > Understand that if the argument is that > > a) Homosexuality is entirely genetic > b) Homosexual animals exist in the wild > > Then it also follows that > c) The recessive homosexuality gene is removed via the process of Natural Selection > in the wild. > > The genetics which lead to Homosexuality in animals is removed from the gene pool of > the group, on the few occasions it occurs. > This is not arguing the worth of the animals, or their contribution to their animal > groups, or right/wrong or anything along those > lines. > > It is saying though that if by some unfortunate circumstance the one member of a > group of animals that bears a resistant gene to > some disease, or some highly desirable quality is Homosexual, then that group of > animals will never have the benefit of that gene. > > And if it is required for survival, the group will die.If the animal were not > homosexual that necessary genetic information can be > carried on to other offspring. If the animal is homosexual then its genetic stock > absolutely cannot be shared with the group and > form part of the evolutionary process of that species. It definitely ends with the > homosexual animal if it is not found in a > heterosexual member of the species. > > Given that and using strictly animals and not humans, I can't see how homosexuality > would be > > i) Normal > > Normal in the sense that a calf having a fifth leg or a snake having two heads,is > not normal. But it does happen. > > ii) Desirable in animals. > > A fifth leg or two heads is not desirable in a species and usually leads to problems > that affect the sustainability of the animal > and leads to its death. > > So I can't understand any comparison between Human homosexuals, and animals in the > wild. > > Perhaps you can explain? > -Gel > > -----Original Message----- > From: Larry C. Lyons > > But consider cooperative or social animals, while homosexual animals > may not directly reproduce, their cooperation with the group means > that their gene set will be more likely paassed on through siblings > etc. > > larry > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| This list and all House of Fusion resources hosted by CFHosting.com. The place for dependable ColdFusion Hosting. http://www.houseoffusion.com/banners/view.cfm?bannerid=11 Message: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=i:5:132112 Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/threads.cfm/5 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=s:5 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.5 Donations & Support: http://www.houseoffusion.com/tiny.cfm/54
