> Andreas Johansson wrote:
> > Obviously, a gene for homosexuality would be in trouble.
> Not necessarily.  Closet homosexuals can still have children.  Also,
> some genes can have multiple effects.  One theory I read about a
> homosexual gene is that it might have the effect of making for stronger
> same-sex friendships, which could, conceivably, lead to higher social
> status and greater reproductive success.
Personally (and I speak from a biased point of view) I distrust the
genetic theory of homosexuality, simply because sexuality is not a
"this or that" situation.

I know a fair number of (openly) gay men who have entered into a
stable and long-lasting heterosexual relationship - for a number of
complex reasons, but often involving the desire to have children.

Biologically, humans are a bit of a paradox, in that sex (and
sexuality) has become a social tool over and above procreation. And
current statistics seem to show that our willingness to share sexual
favours to build (relatively) stable social structures has helped us
become one of the dominant species (by biomass) on the planet.

> However, I really doubt it's so simple as either a gene or the
> environment, probably a mixture of many factors.
I live in hope that someone will come up with a positive, socially
contributive model to explain my "inversion"

ps: personally, I don't like "gay" - what was wrong with "catemite"?
Or even "ganymede"? At least they were polysyllabic...

> --
> Cenedl heb iaith, cenedl heb galon
> A nation without a language is a nation without a heart - Welsh proverb
> ICQ: 18656696
> AIM Screen-Name: NikTaylor42
Rik, knee deep