Homosexuality and Natural Selection.

Recent studies have been fairly conclusive in their analysis of homosexuality among males and birth order.To sum up the results:Some women are essentially allergic to testosterone. As they produce male children, their body builds up defenses against the testosterone. The more male children she has, the more the defenses are built up, resulting in the trend for increasing chance of homosexuality among subsequent children.Obviously, like most of biology, this is only one factor, of which there may be many.It's also important to note that this is NOT a genetic mutation. There's nothing in the DNA of the homosexual brother that is different than his oldest (not gay) sibling. There's no reason to think that this effect will be passed on to children should this person choose to reproduce.As for evolutionarily selective factors for or against, since this "trait" in the mother increases with each subsequent children, there is a good likelihood that she'll have produced one or more non-homosexual offspring prior to this child. If there is any selective forces at work, they would necessarily be extremely minor.Edited by Nuggin, : No reason given.

Of course homosexuality is normal.But you have to be aware that there is a very serious, well organized assualt on the rights of these Americans.Fundamentalists consider homosexuality to be a choice and a sin. This is the fuel that drives their hate machine.If, in fact, homosexuality is something someone is born with like hair color, it leaves them very little room for argument.Ignoring fundamentalists is a VERY dangerous strategy which will always result in utter destruction. These are very dangerous people.

Right you are WK, typing late. I'll go back up an edit Right, but it would be gay 3rd or 4th grandson after passing the trait on to a daughter.So the genes are getting propogated through several rounds of child bearing before they show up to have a potential effect.

I'm not saying we should make the decision based on whether or not homosexuality is a choice. We shouldn't. Even if we could prove definitively that homosexuality was purely by choice - we should still not have laws governing it.What I am saying, though, is that when the Fundies talk about homosexuality, like when they talk about Evolution, they simply don't have the facts on their side.Their main argument is that "homosexuality is sinful". Well, here's science blasting yet another gapping hole in their swiss cheese of an argument

Right, and that would be the ability for the individual to reach reproductive age.Oh wait, did you think it was something else?You are taking basically a 5th grade interpretation of evolution and assuming that's all there is. This is incorrect.It is true that sexual attractiveness is a big thing that natural selection selects for. It is also true that it is prehaps the most obvious thing.However, you could be the sexiest damn beetle on the block, if you aren't immune to the local fungus, you aren't going to live long enough to strut your stuff.Sexual attractiveness (or your ability to be attracted to people with whom you can have reproductive sex) is not the ONLY thing natural selection pays attention to.Further, humans are deliberate breeders. We can choose when and with whom we have sex. Homosexuality is not a barrier to reproduction.If you still believe that it is, I suggest you pick any right wing anti-gay legislator and see if he has kids. If he does, that's proof positive that gays can reproduce.