On Wed, 1 Dec 1999 Pvthur@aol.com wrote:
>>>> I commented on heterozygosity in genes...
>
> To paraphrase: 'I think gays are two people of the same sex who are having
> sex. Oh, and they're having too much sex.'
>
> You are defining a term using that same term. And you're pandering to the
> common notion that gays are over-sexed. Shame on you. We don't need to be
> cured by you. Get used to it.
Ok, I am appropriately "chastised". I have no reason to "cure" anyone of anything other than something that I might "catch". (In contrast to say a TB carrier, whom I would have an incentive to "cure".)
I agree that I may have done some inappropriate "grouping". While humans as a whole are "hypersexual" (quoting my professor on human sexuality, based on the fact that humans will have sex when there is no biological reason to do so), there may be no reason to assume that gay people as a group are hypersexual. In fact the logical assumption would be that among gay individuals, there is a normal distribution of hyper-, normo- and hypo- sexual individuals. In a fundamentally scientific analysis, the question is whether there is a difference in hyper/normo/hypo-sexuality ratios in homosexual and heterosexual populations.
However, to be completely realistic about it, because homosexual individuals cannot conceive, they have removed one of the disincentives for sexual activity among those heterosexual individuals for whom fear of conception/pregnancy, when unwilling to parent a child, is a concern. In that respect they are free to exercise the general "human" hypersexuality in cases where heterosexuals may choose to be less active.
>
> To assert: 'Homosexuality is an evolutionary response to overpopulation.'
>
> This little answer solves a couple little problems:
> 1) Gays are unnatural. (No they're not.)
> 2) Gays are against god. (No they're not, or No god. Take your pick.)
>
I would maintain, that engaging in sexual activities for non-procreational purposes is *unnatural* (i.e. it is not in the direct interest of your genes), unless you are getting paid for it in some way (this may include social contacts, indirect economic benefits, general well being from the "rewards" of physical pleasure, etc.). I.e., I believe that the "natural" function of sex is to promote the reproduction of your genes. I assume your genes are selfish. If you are behaving in ways that do not foster their reproduction, you are doing something which is "unnatural" (because if continued to its natural conclusion would mean the elimination of those genes). What is "natural" is something that is going to copy genes. While I will allow that individuals can choose to make a choice to fullfill the happiness directives they (and not their genes) have, I cannot allow that non-procreative sex will make your "genes" happy.
Because we become "gods", the whole "god" discussion is irrelevant.
All that said (perhaps getting myself into more hot water than I started out in), let me state *clearly* that I have absolutely nothing against individuals with a homosexual orientation. Since I'm a diversity fan and because homosexuals increase diversity, I'm a supporter of those orientations.
I put being homosexual in the same class as my going bald. A consequence of genetic factors in potential combination with environmental factors which we may or may not want to change in ourselves when methods for doing so become available. My going bald may have an impact on the potential for making copies of my genes, just as being a homosexual may. Neither of those characteristics has *anything* to do with moral rights or wrongs.
Fundamentally I was trying to provide an explanation for how homosexual orientations might be maintained in a population when they do not foster reproductive success. Unless you argue that all cases of homosexuality orientation are "random" (environmental?), you have to make a case for (a) hypersexuality; (b) misdirected attraction; or (c) something else that I haven't thought or read about.
I'm willing to entertain other ideas.
Robert