Re: virus: Andro-homo-gynes

Zloduska (
Mon, 03 May 1999 10:28:16 -0500

Wade wrote:

>In an amazing example of synchronicity- here is a piece from the JoM
>list, magically, and mathematically! illuminating a brief aside I made
>about homosexuality dooming itself with societal acceptance....

Yes, and at the same time I started the "androgynetics" thread, a similar one discussing "androgynes" and "gender-bending" sprung up on a newsgroup I read.

>So, 1 thing is clear from this:
>If homosexuality is genetic and recessive, and if homosexual men do not
>breed as much as heterosexual men, then there will be a slow decrease in
>the population of homosexuals.

Okay, then how to you explain the people who are predominantly heterosexual (you would say they have the HH or Hh combination), but who frequently have sexual encounters with the same sex? I know of many people either in a marriage or in a serious relationship, who for the most part seem 'heterosexual', but cannot go without occasionally satisfying their homosexual desires. I know of gay people that went to very 'proper' and repressive Catholic schools, but they never got laid so much in their life, because behind closed doors all those Xtian, (HH) hetero-men were really a bunch of (for lack of a better word) "perverts".

If social taboos keep homosexuality thriving, then how to you explain animals in Nature? They, like us, are driven in part by the need to survive and procreate, but even more so then we are. Since homosexuals don't begat other homosexuals with each other (and so that would be counter-productive and a 'taboo' in the animal world), why is homosexuality still a frequent behavior among many animals, including us? Has it occurred to anyone that perhaps homosexuality is a _natural_ behavior, and like most behaviors some gravitate towards it strongly and others don't? No, you have to attribute it to _genes_, presuming we have no choice over the matter. I'm not saying that homosexuals *choose* to be homosexuals, but assuming that having sex or being attracted to the same sex/gender is dependant entirely upon having two [hh]s (either you have it or you don't have it) is also pure nonsense.

I'm not trying to tear down all your mathematic facts and figures here; I'm just using my common sense and experience. Also keep in mind that I don't buy black-and -white labels like "heteroseuxal" and "homosexual" in the first place. You may not like those Gray Areas, but the fact is, most people lie somewhere in between the two extremes.

I also think that "taboos" are only skin-deep and superficial. Many people who 'against' homosexuality are repressed homosexuals themselves. I think that those judgmental people who consider it "immoral" are only saying that for appearances, and then scurrying off to have a fling with their homosexual lover (mind you, they are openly in a hetero-relationship and condemn being gay) or else hiring a child prostitute of the same sex. People are hypocrites, and the ones that construct taboos are the ones that often break them.