Tako: shame on you!!! ( you're a geneticist! ) :-)
Linda, you're wrong, sorry, for two reasons:
1st: The primary biological purpose of sex is not procreation, but variation, since procreation is much more easily assure by fissiparousness ( self-replication ). That's genetics 101. And gays are an obvious outcome of that, if sexuality has anything to do with genetics, of course.
2nd: The primary biological purpose of your hands is not processing words, and the primary biological purpose of your reproductory system is reproduction. If you use 'primary biological purpose' as a way to determine rights and wrongs, you must excuse a rapist who causes a nun to become pregnant. Facts are facts, and values are values: confusing facts with values is a mistake no ethics philosopher or religious leader would ever dare to tread. That wouldn't make any sense.
Bye,
Caio Rossi
----- Original Message ----- From: Tako Oda <toda@m...> From: Tako Oda <toda@m...> To: <vocalist-temporary@yahoogroups.com> To: <vocalist-temporary@yahoogroups.com> Sent: Tuesday, June 19, 2001 6:46 PM Subject: [vocalist] Homosexuality as an essential artifact of sexual genetics WAS: 2Be out?
> Linda Fox <linda@f...> wrote: > Linda Fox <linda@f...> wrote: > > The _primary_ purpose of sex - biologically - is still procreation. > > ... > > Now, if you go along with this idea, that would make homosexual > > attraction biologically "incorrect > > Just have to jump in here with a response to this (I was a geneticist > before I pursued music) > > There can be a lot theories about homosexuality, and no one will ever > know for sure exactly why some people turn out gay. That said, the > popular notions of "survival of the fittest" are too simple to > understand why homosexuality exists at a steady percentage in many > species. One would think that gayness would eventually eliminate > itself in the gene pool - after all, gays would be less likely to > procreate if they are not as interested in straight sex. > > Why are there always homosexuals? There is a delicate hormonal > balance that must be maintained in any population. Evolution wants > males to desire females and vice versa. You couldn't pump up one > hormonal profile for one sex and without affecting the other, since > females and males have all but one chromosome in common. You can't > have a population of uber-straight males and uber-straight-females > because girls and boys are just too genetically similar. > > Even if all sexual orientation genes were located on the X and Y > chromosomes, all people will still have an X chromosome (though a Y > gene might inhibit genes on the X). That leaves precious little real > estate on the Y gene to define straight-manliness. Inevitably, you're > going to end up with boys who like boys and girls who like girls. > > In a mostly monogomous species with mostly consensual sex, there will > develop an equilibrium where most boys want girls and most girls want > boys, and the number of straight boys will match the number of > straight girls. That optimizes the procreative ability of a > population. As a society, a 2.5 on the Kinsey scale ;-) The gay > individuals that turn up are just a testament to how little genetics > separate women from men. > > I'm not even going to go into the potential evolutionary advantages > of bisexuality in non-monogamous social species... > > Tako > > > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ > > >
|