> -----Original Message----- > From: Ian Skinner [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Monday, March 13, 2006 3:16 PM > To: CF-Community > Subject: RE: Being Gay: Nature or Nurture? > > Not really. Evolution is applied to groups as well, it may be to the > group's advantage to have one or more gay members. Their genes are still > passed along - it may not be their genes directly, rather their siblings > etc. get passed along. > > larry > > > Just applying my imagination to it, without a single bit of expertise, > knowledge or cites. > > But it could make sense to me if one goes back far enough to times where > the number of females in a social group could be considerable lower then > the number of males. What are all the extra males supposed to do? Fight > each other for the few females until the group is too weak to handle > external pressures? That could lead to the entire group's genetic > diversity to disappear couldn't it?
Homosexuality could be essentially natural but also be an evolutionary dead-end. For example an evolutionary attempt at stronger women or men with more endurance may have resulted in homosexuality as a side-effect. There is no value judgment here (I'm not saying that homosexuals are "broken") - despite our constant personalization of evolution there is no thought process. It just is. But there's reason to limit the humanistic search for an answer to homosexuality as the desired outcome. Jim Davis ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Message: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=i:5:199975 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
