You mean, you don't know how genes are passed on? :)There at least three models for this: kin selection (the heterosexual descendents of people who have gay children are so much more successful it overcomes the opportunity cost), sexual selection (men with a de-activated gay gene are more attractive to women and/or vice-versa), and sexually antagonistic selection (the same gene that causes some people to be homosexual also increases fecudnity in women). There have been studies that confirm the third model works in a few populations.Besides, what makes youthink there would only be one gay gene?
Martin,Human sexuality is pretty complicated, so there isn't a "gay gene" or a "straight gene". Evolution doesn't create a master race of genetically perfect clones. Becuase we are imperfect replicators, there is always going to exist some variation around the mean. Human sexuality is not an either or proposition-its a continuum with people having varying proportions of attraction for members of the opposite sex and members of their own sex. In addition, gay people often marry and procreate with members of the opposite sex due to societal expectations, and they now have the option of reproducing via artificial insemination.
> Besides, what makes youthink there would only be one gay gene?What makes you think there are any?> In addition, gay people often marry and procreate with members of the opposite sex due to societal expectationsWhich would tend to support the idea that homosexuality is not genetic but merely behavioral.
What makes you think there are any?Patterns withing extended familes.Which would tend to support the idea that homosexuality is not genetic but merely behavioral.So, you're attracted to men, but you choose to not to act on it? It doesn't work that way for me.
Lee,Just because Gays marry members of the opposite sex due to societal pressures doesn't mean they are happy in their choice, and it certainly isn't a pleasant surprise for their spouses when their same-sex affairs are discovered (for example, Ted Haggard and Larry Craig).
> So, you're attracted to men, but you choose to not to act on it? It doesn't work that way for me.Funny, isn't it, how the supposed tolerant ones are the first to go there?
Funny, isn't it, how the supposed tolerant ones are the first to go there?Go where? Did you find that thought insulting or offensive? I have been called gay, or been asked if I was gay, many times and never found it insulting or offensive.At asny rate, you completely ducked the question. You express the sentiment that homosexuality is merely behaviorial, which means the people involved would be attracted to both sexes and choose the one of the same gender. I am asking if this conclusion is based on your personal experience, specifically because it does not match my personal experience. If this conclusion does not match your personal experinece, on what basis do you make this judgement?
I don't blame you for not answering, Lee. It really is a tough question for anyone on your side. If you answer that you aren't making a choice because you have no homosexual feelings, then that opens the door to homosexuals not being able to make a choice because they ahve no heterosexual feelings. On the other hand, the ill-concealed homophobia that so often fuels people of your position won't allow you to admit you have any homosexual feelings, even if you do, for fear of how the homophobia-motivated will react.
> Go where? Did you find that thought insulting or offensive? You seem to want it both ways. It's not an insult, but nevertheless you're hurling it at me.It would not surprise me if there were a genetic component to homosexuality. It would surprise me, however, if that explained everything.See George Gilder's "Men and Marriage" for some of the other reasons men become homosexuals. Much of it seems related to a sense of debasement, a despondency over not being able to measure up to the demands of a heterosexual relationship. In this day and age, it's not easy for a man to live up to a woman's expectations. American women are perhaps the most spoiled women in the history of the world. Little wonder that so many opt out.Gilder goes on: "Because homosexuals do not control society, they are more victims than agents of its decay. The most crucial cause of the rise in homosexuality in America in recent decades is sexual liberation: the emancipation of men from monogamy. Once again when men leave their aging wives to marry young women or maintain young mistresses, they create, in effect a system of polygyny. The annals of anthropology offer few examples of a correlation so complete as that between human societies that tolerate polygyny and societies with conspicuous practice of homosexuality. George P. Murdock's world ethnographic sample of some 580 societies examined by anthropologists indicates a nearly exact correspondence between the two forms of behavior."Gilder: "Best known is the legendary pattern of the Arab world: sheiks with harems and homosexuality pervasive. By allowing a man to have up to four legal wives -- and concubines as well -- Islam made it possible for many young men to find nubile women. Although Islam, like other religions, condemns sodomy and pederasty -- and some Moslem states have imposed the death penalty for such behavior -- polygyny assures that homoexuality will be rampant in many Moslem areas. Wherever monogamy breaks down, however, from Western Australian tribes studied by Edward Westermarck to idyllic Tahiti, from the Mohave Indians examined by George Devereaux to sexually liberated Western Europe, polygyny produces homosexuality. For all the complexities of particular cases, a homosexual culture, whether in prisons, at sea, or in polygamous societies, originates with a lack of available young women."
As a general rule, One Brow, I do not find your questions particularly hard to answer. Not nearly so hard as you find it to understand what I'm saying.In any event, I object to the incessant use of the term "homophobia", which implies fear, and not just fear, but a vicious bigoted fear. It goes hand in hand with the Left's tendency to vilify those who disagree with its agenda. Disagreement can never be honest. Nor even mistaken.As a Christian, I believe the Bible, and the Bible is pretty clear on the subject in spite of the best efforts of obfuscation by liberal clergy. Does that mean I fear homosexuals, or even dislike them? Hardly. I have been a professional musician for most of my life, and if I hated homosexuals or feared them, I picked the wrong line of work. I have worked with, and for, many talented, funny, creative, and engaging gay men, and the occasional lesbian. On a personal level, I have no problems at all with them.I'm sorry for them. I'm sorry they have let their sexuality define them and dictate the course of their lives. It's not what God intended for unfallen man. But they're hardly the only human beings who have sin that requires repenting of. They're hardly the only people who have difficulty living sinless lives. It's the same boat we're all in. Different sin, same fallen condition.Like most liberals, you mistake indulgence for love and acceptance.
Correction:> By allowing a man to have up to four legal wives -- and concubines as well -- Islam made it possible for many young men to find nubile women. Make that: impossible, not possible.
Post a Comment