From: lfoard@Turing.ORG (Lawrence C. Foard)
Subject: Re: Homosexuals anywhere are wrong
Organization: The Turing Project, Charlottesville Virginia.
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 1992 07:50:59 GMT

In article <1992Jul30.202113.10823@cs.yale.edu> rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla) writes:
>In article <1992Jul30.185146.2208@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> lfoard@Turing.ORG (Lawrence C. Foard) writes:
>It is known that SCA has a significant effect on reproductive ability.
>You have yet to show that homosexuality does.

If you want to hand me $100,000 for a study go right ahead, however
I seriously doubt a man who has only had sex with other men will have
any kids. If I find a significant number I will be quite surprised :-)
The Kinsey studies indicate a floor of 4% for men since 4% of men will
never have sex with women. Keep in mind it is 4% if you assume everyone
who ever tries sex with a woman gets her pregnant.

>>When was the last time you saw a closeted gay baboon :-)
>I am aware of the fact that homosexual behavior has been
>observed in animals. I know of no research that shows that
>exclusive homosexual preferences have been observed in any
>species other than humans. Do you have some? If not, then
>this is completely irrelevant, and strongly suggests that the
>amount of time you are allowing for evolution is dramatically too
>long.

I'll leave this up to someone with more information on this topic.
However exclusive homosexuality is seen in sheep, and is a matter
of importance to breeders since they don't want to buy sheep who
are unwilling to breed.
An article appeared about it in the March 8 1992 issue of Parade
magazine.

>>>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. 
>Please provide a peer reviewed study comparing number of children
>of heterosexuals and homosexuals.

Will you accept a peer reviewed study showing that men do not get
pregnant when having sex with other men. To repeat 4% of men never
had sex with a woman, please explain how these men reproduce.

>>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.
>The evidence doesn't point anywhere.

>>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.
>Then provide some of them.

I provided the reference to the Kinsey study in my last post.

>>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.
>Pure Chinese speakers exist too. You think there is a Chinese gene?

But there is a clear environmental influence there, people growing
up in a Chinese house hold learn Chinese. I have never seen a proposed
environmental mechanism for homosexuality that had any correlation with
it as opposed to correlations with genetics.

>>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. 
>No, no, no...You made your assertion. Back it up.

I'm ascerting that the evidence is more consistant with genetics
than environment. Yes environment >>could<< cause these effects,
but they are much more easily caused by genetics. An environmental
cause must-
1) Be extremely obscure since no one has figured out what it is.
2) Must be able to cause extreme changes sufficient to cause a
   change in brain structure.
3) Must happen early enough in life so that homosexuals have
   no memory of being straight.
4) Must be an environmental factor shared much more strongly between
   identical twins than fraternal twins.

If one must make a choice then occams razor would favor the simpler
explanation. 

>>So lets see the data for your side.
>>1) Papers that indicate that most homosexuals reproduce.
>>2) Studies that show environmental correlations with homosexuals.
>The burden of proof is upon he who asserts, Lawrence.

The original ascertion which I responded to was that homosexuality
was a genetic defect, so it would seem the burden of proof is on
the person stating that.
-- 
>>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