Bradley Felton <zim@pobox.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
> anyway....
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:harv@gate.net> Author, Engineer, Entrepreneur, <http://www.gate.net/~harv> Consultant, Researcher, Scientist. <ldap://certserver.pgp.com>