From: rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla)
Subject: Re: Homosexuals anywhere are wrong
Organization: Rescorla for himself.
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1992 20:21:13 GMT

In article <1992Jul30.185146.2208@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> lfoard@Turing.ORG (Lawrence C. Foard) writes:
>In article <1992Jul30.164911.8604@cs.yale.edu> rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla) 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?)
The number of Tay Sachs sufferers is ~0 since it kills them
very early. The number of carriers is reasonably high.

>>Remember, Tay Sach is ALWAYS fatal.

>>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. 
Homosexuality is NOT fatal, friend.
It is known that SCA has a significant effect on reproductive ability.
You have yet to show that homosexuality does.

>>>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.
I don't give a rats ass about your anecdotal experience. How about
you post some real data or stop claiming this.
Hell, most PEOPLE I know don't have kids.

>>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? 
Lawrence, this is a factual discussion. It is completely irrelevant
whether anyone hates you for having kids or not.

>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.
And I've already proposed a possible reason why twins would have
such high correlations. Until you control for that, your argument
is worthless.

>>>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 :-)
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.

>>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.
Anecdotal evidence is worthless in a scientific argument.

>>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.

>I have presented the evidence that I know of that exists at the present time
>for genetic origins.
Which is essentially nonexistent. I have explained to you a simple
way to account for the correlations you are seeing as environmental
effects. I refer you once again to the IQ literature for comparison.

>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.

>>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.
Then provide some of them.

>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?

>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?
Nope.

>>>The brain studies indicate that there are physical differences in the
>>>brain, while these could concievably be caused by environment it does
>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 just being a skeptic.

>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.

You asserted. It's your burden.
-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