From: rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla)
Subject: Re: Homosexuals anywhere are wrong
Organization: Rescorla for himself.
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 17:10:21 GMT

In article <1992Jul29.153107.26021@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> lfoard@Turing.ORG (Lawrence C. Foard) writes:
>In article <1992Jul29.024228.15848@cs.yale.edu> rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla) writes:
>>In article <1992Jul29.020720.4894@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> lfoard@Turing.ORG (Lawrence C. Foard) writes:
>>>If homosexuality was a defect rather than beneficial evolution would
>>>have removed it long ago. There is simply no way a trait that results
>>>in 10% of the population not reproducing will survive unless it enhances
>>>the survival chances of the population as a whole.
>>Pure garbage.
>>1) Many homosexuals DO reproduce, for various reasons.
>
>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.

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. 

>>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?

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. 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.


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

>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?

There is absolutely zero reason why environment must generate
50/50 preference ratios for sexual orientation.

-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.
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc