![]() |
|
#8
|
|||
|
|||
|
OK slow down. Please don't put words in my mouth.
I have not said that gay is 'the opposite' of hetero. I have not said that gayness is unfit - I have said I do not see how it can be. As to "no reason that gay = reproductive sexual aversion" I have to wonder who it is who actually has the 'very very inaccurate view' of gayness. I imagine (I imagine, as in, I do not know, and I doubt whether any one person, even a gay one, could provide a definitive answer one way or another) that gay people do not find, or tend strongly not to find, members of the opposite sex attractive sexually. (5 minute pause) Now that the gasps of shock have finally died down, can we move on from this, and away from the idea that once you find a gay man who had a kid, a lesbian who had a kid, then any curiosity about the reproductive fitness of gayness is irrefutably silenced? Because that's absolute bollocks. I am talking about tendencies over very long periods of time and I have made that about as clear as I possibly can. I think a lot of people here are allowing the (potential) political dimension of this issue to cloud their judgement. To throw my hat into the ring, one of my best beloved aunts is a lesbian. I do not have a problem with gays. I am not trying to construct some 'reason' to hate them or look down on them or in any way impugn or call into question their right to life and liberty and all that jazz - I'm just talking about genetic theory. I sense hostility behind your words and I hope this will allay it. |
|
|