From: lfoard@Turing.ORG (Lawrence C. Foard)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,talk.origins
Subject: Re: Homosexuals anywhere are wrong
Date: 30 Jul 92 18:51:46 GMT
Organization: The Turing Project, Charlottesville Virginia.

In article <1992Jul30.164911.8604@cs.yale.edu> rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla) writes:
>In article <1992Jul30.050908.8811@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> lfoard@Turing.ORG (Lawrence C. Foard) writes:
>>
>>1) What percentage of the population has Tay Sachs? 
>>   Compare it to 10%
>Has Tay Sachs been "wiped out"? I think not.

But how many people have Tay Sachs? Could Tay Sachs continue to exist
in 10% of the population or even 1% for a significant period of time?
(I'm assuming Tay Sachs kills people before they reproduce?)

>Remember, Tay Sach is ALWAYS fatal.
>We have yet to establish that being gay has a significant effect
>on your reproductive potential.

Take a look at the program I posted, a 50% difference is "significant"
over a very short time scale (2000 years). A 1% difference is still
enough to virtually remove something in 10's of thousands of years, still
a short time scale for evolution.

>I'm crossposting this to talk.origins so that we can get some good
>input on this.
>
>>2) Many genetic diseases (I'm not sure about Tay Sachs) are the result 
>>   of having two pairs of an otherwise beneficial gene. A gene that
>>   gives diseases resistance (to malaria?) also causes problems when
>>   two copies are present. But if the benefit from the disease resistance
>>   saves more people than it kills then it will continue to exist.
>Have you considered the possibility that one "gay" gene is
>beneficial and makes you a heterosexual who likes pink, which happens
>to be a survival trait[Ridiculousness intended] but that two makes
>you gay, which is a Bad Thing?

While I can't say this is impossible it does seem very unlikely. Sickle cell
anemia is not present in 10% of the population, if it had been around for
the entire evolution of mammals, any mutation that fixed the gene so that
two copies where not fatal would have an extreme advantage. This advantage
would have quickly won out. 

While its concievable that a single copy of the gay gene would provide a
benefit making it survive losing 10% of its copies, a mutation would would
most likely have come along at sometime that would make two copies not
cause a lack of reproduction.  

I won't claim that this positively could not be the case, but I don't
see any evidence to suggest that anything similar in effect has survived
that long. 

Much is uncertain until the gene (assuming there is one) is found, but
relative probabilities can be assigned. Given the extrodinary conditions
required for homosexuality to exist if it is a defect I still believe
it makes no sense to call it one when much more likely explanations
of its existance exist (group selection, etc.).

>>Do you believe the Tay Sachs gene would be able to continue for millions
>>of years if 10% of the population got the disease as a result? 
>If it weren't always fatal but merely had a small effect on your
>reproductive capacity, why not?

Most homosexuals I know do not have kids. You can claim that society's
have been repressive until recently and gays where forced to have kids,
but I don't think this will hold up historically. Nor does it work
in species where there is no church/religion to oppress.

>>If homosexuality where a genetic disease it would be seen at rates
>>like those of standard genetic diseases, and only then if a single copy
>>of the gene provided a benefit, since it has been around for millions
>>of years of evolution.
>Ratshit.
>There is not, to my knowledge, ANY evidence that any copy of Tay
>Sachs is good for anything. 

You haven't answered the question what percentage of the population
has Tay Sachs? The number will approach zero more slowly as time goes
on since the probability of getting the disease (and thus removing its
genes) approximately like the square of the probability of having the gene.
But if it effected 10% of the population significant amount of the gene
will be lost each generation and it would not remain at 10% for long (
without some beneficial effect).

>Remember, you're assuming something
>that hasn't been shown--that reproductive rates for gays are
>significantly lower than that of the general population.
>And no, it doesn't stand to reason.

Maybe you can tell that to the people who hate us for not having
kids? 

>>Where is the correlation between environment and sexuality? Homosexuality
>>is seen in cultures that are very repressive, and heterosexuality is still
>>most prevelant in cultures where homosexuality is looked up to.
>What makes you think it's a matter of imitating/conforming to what
>you see around you? It could be related to environment in a way
>we don't anticipate at all. You really should consider that as
>a serious possibility.

But has any one correlated it to anything? I've never seen a claim for
a correlation that was backed up with any evidence. You can't prove a
negative but there is a consistant lack of evidence here as compared
to a very strong correlation between twins. I'm sure there is some
influence from the environment, but the evidence seems to indicate
a strong correlation with identical genes and a correlation between
siblings which could be either environmental or genetic.

>>Why do twins have much stronger correlations between there sexualities
>>than there brothers and sisters?
>Because they are the same age and thus have a more similar environment.

But then you would expect the correlations between identical and fraternal
twins to be closer. (I'll see if I can find the stuff I saved from the
twins studies articles)

>>Name any other attribute that prevents 10% of the population from
>>replicating? 
>It doesn't. Many homosexuals stay in the closet, marry, and have kids,
>even today. 

When was the last time you saw a closeted gay baboon :-)

>There is no reason to believe that the reproductive
>differential is very large at all. 

You keep ascerting this, could you point to some evidence for this
view point? Personally I know that most gay men do not have kids.

>Your 10% figure is CLEARLY bogus for this reason. Either present
>better figures or stop claiming this.

Take a look at Kinsey, the 10% figure is based on the sexual activity of
people. Unless men have uteruses even the most conservative reading says 4%
of the population does not reproduce. 

>>This is a suggestion for a possible mechanism, I'm not saying its the
>>right one. The interesting thing is I've never seen evidence for the
>>environment side presented, people who believe sexuality is exclusively
>>caused by environment can at best prove uncertainty unless they have
>>evidence to back up there view (sorry bible quotes don't cut it).
>So what? You're making an assertion that sexuality IS genetically
>controlled. You have the responsibility to back it up.

I have presented the evidence that I know of that exists at the present time
for genetic origins. If you have any evidence for environmental origins
please present it. There is insufficient evidence to conclusively
prove either view, but when all evidence points toward genetics then
I don't think its unreasonable to tenetatively assume that to be the case.

>You're also making an argument that it's an evolutionary asset.
>Time to back that up, too.

I have shown over and over again that if it does not impart an
advantage it would no longer exist. If you disagree please show
me 
1) proof for your ascertion that the 10% figure is incorrect and 
   give a reasonable figure. The 10% figure is derived from real
   studies.
2) show mathematically or with a simulation that this level of
   loss of the gene can survive for even the evolution of humans.
   Without being an evolutionary asset.

>>But unlike the human spine which has only had the life time of the
>>human species to develop, sexuality has had since some time very
>>very far back (billion years?). But yet homosexuality is still seen
>>in atleast mammals and birds.
>You're still missing the point. You're assuming that a pure hetero
>gene is easy to generate. It may be very hard.

But pure hetero's do exist so the capacity does exist. Remember evolution
has all sorts of means available to it, it won't necessarily take a head
on approach. If its environment evolution can attack the environment to.

>>The studies on twins is one of the best pieces of evidence since 
>>it clearly shows a stronger correlation between genetics and sexuality
>>than environment. 
>Ratshit. I refer you to the copious literature on controlling
>twin studies for IQ measurement for data on just how hard
>it is to do heritability studies with twins. The problem is that
>twins HAVE more similar environment than siblings of differing
>ages, and monozygotic twins even more so.

So lets compare the influences of something that is known to be
environmental to the results of the twins studies. Do you know
of any twins studies done where something was exclusively environmental?

>>The brain studies indicate that there are physical differences in the
>>brain, while these could concievably be caused by environment it does
>>indicate that there is more to sexuality than suddenly deciding that
>>you like being harrased by psycho bible beaters so you will turn gay.
>Has it occurred to you that being gay might CAUSE the physical differences?

Yes thats why I stated that this was inconclusive, however again you
use the word "might","could",etc. proving that there is a tiny chance that
genetics are not the cause is a far cry from proving environmental
causes. 

>>What if every culture even cultures which despised blue to the
>>point where you could be killed for liking blue still had nearly
>>the same ratio of blue likers?
>Wouldn't show anything.
>Suppose children who were placed facing north as kids liked blue
>and those placed facing south didn't. Suppose after age 2 this was
>solidly fixed. You'd see exactly the same pattern you see for
>sexual orientation. A fixed ratio.

And most likely someone could derive what the influence was. Inorder
to explain a major change caused by environment you also need a cause
that could do it. Everything psycologists thought up falls flat when
tested.

>So, the way I see it, you have some data to generate.
>1) That homosexuals rate of reproduction is significantly lower than
>that for heterosexuals.

References for the original Kinsey work can most likely be obtained from-
Incidence, frequency, and the Kinsey 0-6 scale. C.A. Tripp
"The Encyclopedia of Homosexuality"

>2) These twin studies you keep citing.

Sorry I don't have the references off hand, but you can write to
geoffp@cup.portal.com and ask for a copy of his press release (sorry
I lost my copy).

>Peer reviewed studies only need apply.

So lets see the data for your side.
1) Papers that indicate that most homosexuals reproduce.
2) Studies that show environmental correlations with homosexuals.

-- 
>>Unix/C Contract worker available 5 years C/unix work experience<<  ______
Available for Telecommuting/Travel and contracts on the T Line       \    /
in the Boston MA area. Send me e-mail for a copy of my Resume.        \  /
       -- VWIS 508-793-9568 (2400 baud), Linux support BBS.--          \/
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc