From: lfoard@Turing.ORG (Lawrence C. Foard)
Subject: Re: Homosexuals anywhere are wrong
Organization: The Turing Project, Charlottesville Virginia.
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1992 05:09:08 GMT

In article <1992Jul29.171021.24832@cs.yale.edu> rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla) writes:
>In article <1992Jul29.153107.26021@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> lfoard@Turing.ORG (Lawrence C. Foard) writes:
>>Even if 50% do that still leaves 50% a survival rate of 1% less than
>>average will wipe out a gene in a fairly small number of generations.
>Please explain the existence of Tay Sachs, which is inevitably
>fatal.

1) What percentage of the population has Tay Sachs? 
   Compare it to 10%
   
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.

>The selective pressure against recessive traits turns out to be
>surprisingly weak, especially as their incidence in the population
>gets low, because the vast majority of people carrying the gene
>are heterozygous. 

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 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.

>>>2) If sexual orientation is not genetically controlled, then it cannot
>>>be selected for or against.
>>
>>Lets say for a minute homosexuality has no benefit for the species and
>>only results in loss, then evolution will make sure that everyone is
>>straight, even if orientation was not originally genetic.
>>(hint over 50% of people are straight, thus unless straightness is learned
>> orientation is genetic)
>Of course unless straightness is learned, orientation is genetic.
>Traits are either environmental or genetic.
>Why shouldn't environment happen to favor straightness?

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.

Why do twins have much stronger correlations between there sexualities
than there brothers and sisters?

>The claim that we would have evolved so that orientation
>WERE genetic is total bullshit. I can think of lots of
>modifications to our body that would be improvements that
>evolution hasn't made. 

Name any other attribute that prevents 10% of the population from
replicating? 

Another way of putting the question is-
Why assume that 50% replication is ideal? If more replication is better why
not have hermaphridites (it isn't a big genetic jump it happens all the time
by accident)? I think the answer is that ideally not all creatures reproduce
and in humans the number reproducing is ideally 40% rather than 50%, so
evolution found a way to make 40% reproduction happen the cheapest way
possible by making some people homosexual. 

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).

>Evolution isn't design from scratch,
>it's preference of competing variants. If generating a variant
>which precludes homosexuality is nontrivial, then it's simply
>not likely to evolve, just as I'm stuck with a spine that is
>evolved from four legged animals, thus predisposing me to
>back problems. I suggest you check out Steven Jay Gould's
>The Panda's Thumb for more info on this.

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.

>>>3) It is not, to my knowledge, known that sexual orientation is
>>>genetically controlled.
>>
>>There is alot of evidence,
>Please present some.

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. 

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.

>>Now explain why over 50% of people are straight or mostly straight if 
>>sexuality is learned, when did you learn to be straight?
>Consider the following. Some portion of the population likes the
>color blue. Some other portion of the population does not like the
>color blue. I suspect that these portions are not precisely equal.
>
>Now explain why over/less than 50% of people like the color blue
>if color preference is learned. When did you learn to like blue?

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?

-- 
>>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.--          \/