Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mark
From: mark@utzoo.UUCP (mark bloore)
Newsgroups: net.singles
Subject: Re: gay response response
Message-ID: <3179@utzoo.UUCP>
Date: Sun, 28-Aug-83 14:47:20 EDT
Article-I.D.:    utzoo.3179
Posted: Sun Aug 28 14:47:20 1983
Date-Received: Sun, 28-Aug-83 14:47:20 EDT
References: <622@hou5d.UUCP>
Organization: U of Toronto Zoology
Lines: 29


	If we assume the theory of natural selection,  surely homosexuality
	is, in the majority of cases, a learned tendancy.  As it does not
	tend to benefit the survival of homo sapiens.
		Why is it then claimed to be natural ?
			Wearing my asbestos suit,
				Ken Cochran,       hou5d!kwmc

first and foremost:  it doesn't have to be natural.  the shrill cry of
"unnatural" is an excuse for bigotry.  (but i am not accusing ken of this.
i can't glean his attitude from his message).  driving cars, programming
computers and taking penicillin are all learned behaviors too.

almost all human behavior is learned.  that is natural to us.  our lives are
too complicated to run on instinct, like a honeybee.

why do you say homosexuality does not tend to benefit our survival?  man
is a social creature, and homosexuality may play a usefull role in
supporting human societies (at least of the small, family-group, sort that
were probably the norm for most of our evolution).  see edward o. wilson
(eg. "on human nature", harvard univ. press, 1978, pp 142-147) for a longer
development of this argument.
nature selects for the survival of genes, not just for making babies.
what promotes the survival of genes is not necessarily obvious.


				mARK bLOORE
				univ of toronto
				{allegra,ihnp4,linus,decvax}!utzoo!mark