Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Sharks in the Septic Tank -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: TH who wrote (2427)	1/22/2001 11:33:09 PM
From: E	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 82486

<< I prefer to label homosexuality as, "Biologically disfunctional". Which without debate, it is. >> It is dysfunctional "biologically" only if you propose a very simple definition of biological functionality. What if, as is the case with a some other genes, there are beneficial associated effects? In this situation, what if the gene that predisposes to homosexuality is associated with a genetic characteristic that has certain survival advantages for the genes of the homosexual? This would work in this way: The gay gene is associated with, say, a gene that protects against a certain bacterium, or against succumbing to hunger, or to the bite of a mosquito; or that increases the ability to think creatively, ie originally, in circumstances in which the ability to solve new problems has survival value. The carrier of the gay gene is less likely to pass his DNA on directly, but may be ahead in the DNA-passing sweepstakes, over generations, because he supplies his brothers and sisters and their offspring, all of whom carry his DNA, with survival advantages. He can still gather food when those w/o the protective gene are ill, or weak from hunger, or he can figure out what to do to keep his brothers and sisters and nieces and nephews alive when the going gets unusual. Your genes can be passed as well by four individuals who carry 1/4 of your genes (your siblings' children) as by two with 1/2 your genes (your own.) If a gene doesn't deselect itself eventually, suspect that it isn't dysfunctional, I'd suggest. We might not know yet how it's advantaging the group to have it there, but we do know it's still there. A statement like " I prefer to label homosexuality as, "Biologically disfunctional". Which without debate, it is" seems very much like your statement about normalcy. You stipulate, and think you have presented evidence.

To: TH who wrote (2427)	1/23/2001 1:20:17 AM
From: epicure	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

I think all animals live only one generation- unless you have some animal in mind that rises like a phoenix. What you mean is they do not breed a new generation. Yet they remain a constant factor. It is interesting. I see no problem with them being constantly with us. If humans were divorced from procreation- if they lived forever and had no need to procreate but had sex purely for fun- would you have a problem with homosexuality? You seem to have a problem with it because such unions do not produce offspring, and thus do not "further" nature. Let me tell you- from my point of view there are far too many people in the world, and the more people creating no new people, the better. Maybe nature doesn't want anymore people. Maybe homosexuals are natures way of saying STOP making more people. Now they aren't, imo, but you could make a Hell of an argument for that.