![]() So, exactly how does a homosexual couple engaged in their normal sexual relations pass on those genes? Or are you suggesting that we should develop methods that allow the genes of a homosexual couple to be spread to the next generation through some sort of recombinate DNA methods, surrogate mothers (for male homosexual couples) or artificial wombs of some sort? Assuming we develop the science necessary, will it be fair for female homosexual couples to be only capable of producing female offspring? Or should we also develop methods to convert an X chromosome to a Y chromosome so that female homosexuals "can have" boys? I'm being silly, of course, since the genes from homosexuals are naturally (in an evolutionary sense) being passed on anyway - according to you.
|
|
![]() Doesn't the existence of homosexuality in nature disprove your apparent belief that it's an evolutionary dead end?
From the NS linky above: It has also been suggested that homosexuality boosts individuals' reproductive success, albeit indirectly. For instance, same-sex partners might have a better chance of rising to the top of social hierarchies and getting access to the opposite sex. In some gull species, homosexual partnerships might be a response to a shortage of males - rather than have no offspring at all, some female pairs raise offspring together after mating with a male from a normal male-female pair. Passing on genes is about more than impregnation. It's about having the group thrive better than other groups in that niche. HTH. Cheers, Scott. |
|
![]() You know darned well how I think it might be possible for a still unknown genetic tendency toward homosexuality to be propagated in a heterosexual species (excluding the pregnancies derived from homosexual males and/or females having heterosexual sex). You also know darned well that I can have no factual basis to believe what I believe about this because there are no known genetic markers for homosexuality. Since you asked, I'll repeat myself. I believe - like the rest of the world believed until 1973 when political pressure was applied based upon a trivially small study - that a genetic predisposition to homosexuality exists and that the genes yielding the homosexual phenotype are related to the genes associated with mental illness.
|
|
![]() Trouble is, genes aren't binary. As the article points out, genes that cause sickle cell disease also help to increase the chance of survival of malaria. The benefits of having genes that increase homosexual tendencies may have other benefits that aren't immediately apparent.
(That's one of the reasons why eugenics is not just evil, it's stupid.) "Mental illness" is a big minefield. Just about every woman was lumped in that category at one time (and not that long ago). Dirac may have been autistic - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Dirac "Fixing" homosexuals didn't end well in at least one famous case - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_Turing Understanding changes. The world becomes a tiny, confining place when we try to force it into boxes. Treating everyone equally, with equal benefits from - and responsibilities to - society (when possible), is the best approach. Cheers, Scott. |
|
![]() can bump uglies more often? Male strength female nurturing instincts helps a tribe
Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free American and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 58 years. meep
|