XPost: rec.audio.opinion, alt.religion.scientology   
   From: spam@spam.com   
      
   On Mon, 30 Aug 2010 06:45:40 -0500, flipper  wrote:   
      
   >On Mon, 30 Aug 2010 10:54:04 GMT, spam@spam.com (Don Pearce) wrote:   
   >   
   >>On Mon, 30 Aug 2010 05:10:57 -0500, flipper  wrote:   
   >>   
   >>>On Mon, 30 Aug 2010 09:34:58 GMT, spam@spam.com (Don Pearce) wrote:   
   >>>   
   >>>>On Mon, 30 Aug 2010 04:26:02 -0500, flipper  wrote:   
   >>>>   
   >>>>>On Mon, 30 Aug 2010 06:55:39 GMT, spam@spam.com (Don Pearce) wrote:   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>>>On Sun, 29 Aug 2010 19:07:09 -0700 (PDT), "Shhhh!!!! I'm Listening to   
   >>>>>>Reason!"  wrote:   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>> >What about that whole random thing?   
   >>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>> That's part of it. As long as you have two populations, one of which   
   >>>>>>>> breeds better than the other, the worse will eventually die out. I   
   >>>>>>>> think we can agree that homosexuals have a poorer breeding record than   
   >>>>>>>> heteros. This observation alone should be enough to convince that   
   >>>>>>>> homosexuality isn't an inherited trait.   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>I disagree. As long as there's discrimination there's a reason to hide   
   >>>>>>>one's orientation. Look at all the "conservative republicans" who have   
   >>>>>>>been outed, yet have families. Ditti those in the military. And those   
   >>>>>>>are just two examples.   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>In a vacuum your argument might even work. It doesn't in real life   
   >>>>>>>though.   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>>I have no idea how your response addresses my post. I am talking about   
   >>>>>>genetics; no more and no less. Whether - and even how - anybody is   
   >>>>>>"outed" has absolutely no bearing on the matter.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>>Sure it does, because humans can counter or, at least, mask what would   
   >>>>>otherwise be instinctive behavior and I presume he's proposing that   
   >>>>>cultural taboo would be one incentive to do so.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>>Your 'genetic' presumptions, especially in the context of behavior,   
   >>>>>are too simplistic. For example, the gene could also require an   
   >>>>>environmental trigger to be expressive.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>   
   >>>>What you say refers to particular individual circumstances.   
   >>>   
   >>>No, that 'individual circumstance' is only an example.   
   >>>   
   >>>> Genetics   
   >>>>doesn't work that way. It operates at the level of the huge. You can   
   >>>>manipulate all you like at the local level, and in the short term, but   
   >>>>in the end evolution will win.   
   >>>   
   >>>As I said before, your view of genetics is too simplistic.   
   >>>   
   >>>   
   >>>>Anyway, the effect would have occurred long before societies started   
   >>>>developing opinions about homosexuality. No, it is clear that there is   
   >>>>no gene for homosexuality.   
   >>>   
   >>>Then they really are masters of propaganda and linguists   
   >>>extraordinaire as they've apparently been duping laboratory rats and   
   >>>mice into defying their genes for decades, at the very least.   
   >>>   
   >>Nope, we are still apparently engaged in two unrelated conversations   
   >>here. I propose we stop before the confusion is total.   
   >   
   >No confusion here and the conversation is about the possibility of   
   >homosexuality having a genetic component.   
   >   
   No, that's my conversation. Yours is about sexual politics,   
   propaganda, linguistics etc. etc. I have no interest in that   
   conversation.   
      
   d   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)