Re: What is this nonsense about the gay gene?

• Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
• Next message: Michael McBroom: "Language evolution in early hominids?"
• Previous message: Peter H. Proctor: "Re: Beyond hairlessness"
• Maybe in reply to: Angelique Skiman: "What is this nonsense about the gay gene?"
• Next in thread: HARRY R. ERWIN: "Re: What is this nonsense about the gay gene?"

Given that people are physically capable of having sex with
either opposite or same sex (as well as sheep etc.), wouldn't a
"gay gene" or a "straight gene" essentially have to be negative
in its contribution? That is, wouldn't it be there to turn off one's
ability to be attracted to the opposite or same sex (respectively)?
What advantage would this confer reproductively (for humans,
that is, not for seasonally constrained maters)? Just because a
human had sex with the same sex that wouldn't necessarily
mean they didn't also have just as much if not more sex with
the opposite sex. Looking at some legendary characters (like
Zeus in Greek mythology, or Cuchulain and Medb in Irish
mythology), it seems as if the occasional same sex liaison was
thrown in as supportive of the prodigious nature of their sexual
appetites. So being undersexed would seem to be more of a
reproductive disadvantage than being indiscriminately oversexed.
No?

- paul

-- 

"People, I just want to say, you know, can we all get along?

I mean, we're stuck here for a while. Let's try to work it out."

                       - Rodney King, 1992


       http://www.iii.net/users/connelly

• Next message: Michael McBroom: "Language evolution in early hominids?"
• Previous message: Peter H. Proctor: "Re: Beyond hairlessness"
• Maybe in reply to: Angelique Skiman: "What is this nonsense about the gay gene?"
• Next in thread: HARRY R. ERWIN: "Re: What is this nonsense about the gay gene?"