Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!cs.utexas.edu!uwm.edu!ux1.cso.uiuc.edu!iuvax!rutgers!rochester!pt.cs.cmu.edu!andrew.cmu.edu!+ From: Christian.Molick@CS.CMU.EDU Newsgroups: sci.bio Subject: Re: The persistance of homosexuality Message-ID: Date: 30 Jul 90 16:31:53 GMT Organization: Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA Lines: 29 > ... Taken another way, if an animal population suddenly became > predominantly homosexual its breeding population would soon > become sub-critical and poof no more "heridity." Obviously my point got missed. Just because people desire sex within their gender does not render them unable to reproduce. There are many examples of homosexuals using heterosexuality to produce children--it is just not the sexuality that fills their sexual desires, but the sexuality that fills their desire for children. There's another point on which I think your observation is incorrect. Even if most sexuality occurs between members of the same sex in a species, there could concievably be enough heterosexuality happening to keep all females pregnant all the time. The myth here is that homosexuals cannot perform as heterosexuals. They can, and many homosexual humans do because of the desire to breed children of their own. (Ranting: This all gets me very upset because people argue that allowing people to admit homosexuality will lead to the human population going into a tailspin. The key, though, is that the need for sexual fufilment and the need for reproductive fufilment CAN be effectively separated. Furthermore, it should be considered that a major drop in human population might be the one thing that can bring our population back to a managable size. Even the bumper crop of '85 would not have been able to feed everyone if distributed equitably. Our races problem is NOT underpopulation!) ChristianM