From: rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla)
Subject: Re: Homosexuals anywhere are wrong
Organization: Rescorla for himself.
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1992 16:49:11 GMT

In article <1992Jul30.050908.8811@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> lfoard@Turing.ORG (Lawrence C. Foard) writes:
>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%
Has Tay Sachs been "wiped out"? I think not.
Remember, Tay Sach is ALWAYS fatal.
We have yet to establish that being gay has a significant effect
on your reproductive potential.

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?

>>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 it weren't always fatal but merely had a small effect on your
reproductive capacity, why not?

>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. 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.

>>>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
>>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.
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.

>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.

>>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? 
It doesn't. Many homosexuals stay in the closet, marry, and have kids,
even today. There is no reason to believe that the reproductive
differential is very large at all. 

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

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

>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.

>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.

>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?

>>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?
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.


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.
2) These twin studies you keep citing.

Peer reviewed studies only need apply.

-Ekr



-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eric Rescorla, DoD#431 (Nighthawk S)              rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu
Former chemist now CM400 mechanic                     We hack anything.
                       I will hack Unix for food.