Re: What is this nonsense about the gay gene?

• Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
• Next message: mikko.levanto@vtt.fi: "Re: CFV: sci.philosophy.natural moderated"
• Previous message: Tim Benham: "evolution of the hymen (was: Re: Male Virginity and Circumcision (was: Re: Origin of circumcision)"
• Maybe in reply to: Angelique Skiman: "What is this nonsense about the gay gene?"

Paul Connelly (connelly@dawnstar.iii.net) wrote:

: 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?

No. Sex is dangerous, or hadn't you noticed?

--

		  People who like this sort of thing

       	      will find this the sort of thing they like.

Tim J.Benham                                       bentj93@cs.adfa.oz.au

• Next message: mikko.levanto@vtt.fi: "Re: CFV: sci.philosophy.natural moderated"
• Previous message: Tim Benham: "evolution of the hymen (was: Re: Male Virginity and Circumcision (was: Re: Origin of circumcision)"
• Maybe in reply to: Angelique Skiman: "What is this nonsense about the gay gene?"