[Don Pearce[_3_]]

On Mon, 30 Aug 2010 06:45:40 -0500, flipper wrote:

On Mon, 30 Aug 2010 10:54:04 GMT, (Don Pearce) wrote:

On Mon, 30 Aug 2010 05:10:57 -0500, flipper wrote:

On Mon, 30 Aug 2010 09:34:58 GMT, (Don Pearce) wrote:

On Mon, 30 Aug 2010 04:26:02 -0500, flipper wrote:

On Mon, 30 Aug 2010 06:55:39 GMT, (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