Bradley Felton <email@example.com> wrote:
> I don't assume that gay males desire females, I used "normal" in above
> sentence to contrast with "gay". Perhaps I should have used "straight"
> instead. Sorry....
Oops, no problem. I thought you were still talking about the gay rats.
> How many of our genes came from males who never mated with a female? Our
> whole genetic sequence evolved bit by bit by providing a reproductive
> advantage every step of the way. If the so called "gay gene" is what we
> think it is, it codes for a reproductive strategy that was, at the time it
> was coded, successful. Successful reproductive strategies for males all
> involve mating with females....
> No, I am happy to assume that gays with the "gay gene" "really" prefer men
> to women. However, the fact that there is a genetic correlation means that
> they must usually overcome their natural interest and mate with females
No. You keep thinking that if they didn't mate with females and produce offspring, the gene would die out. It wouldn't. If it is indeed a sex-linked gene on the X-chromosome inherited from the mother's side, then boys with the gene could be gay (having only one X chromosome), while girls with the gene would be carriers (having two X chromosomes). Every generation would have males who don't reproduce, and females who reproduce resulting in more gay males. Such a gene would not die out, even if none of the gay males ever reproduced.
-- Harvey Newstrom <mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org> Author, Engineer, Entrepreneur, <http://www.gate.net/~harv> Consultant, Researcher, Scientist. <ldap://certserver.pgp.com>