--- Luke Weiger <lweiger at umich.edu> wrote:
> Justin wrote:
>
> > Well, it's [homosexuality's] not a disease or
> defect [Huntington's disease
> or
> > myopia], for one thing . .
>
> Homosexuality may well be maladaptive in an
> evolutionary sense and yet
> persist for any number reasons (e.g. could be a
> byproduct of other adaptive
> traits etc.). That's the respect in which I
> suggested the conditions might
> be analogous. I'm surprised you couldn't tell what
> I meant.
>
Must be I'm stupid.
I'm surprised you are insensitive enough to compare sexual preferences to diseases and then not except to get static. If Brian D were on the list, he'd have ripped your head off, quite rightly, too.
Of course same sex preference might not be adaptive. That is not thew sociobiologicalists null hypothesis, however.
> Doug wrote:
>
> "I'm guessing that's an ironic question, but you can
> never tell."
>
> No, it wasn't, but I'm pretty sure you
> misinterpreted it. I'd never claim
> that homosexuals are in any way way inferior to
> heterosexuals, or that they
> should seek to "cure" their homosexuality. However,
> what's good for onself
> (and others) needn't necessarily be good for one's
> genes.
>
> -- Luke
>
So who cares about that?
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com