[All-In Flynn]

Sorry to thread-jump, but...

[ QUOTE ]
Sickle-cell genes are highly selected-for in populations where malaria is prevalent, even though having two of them is fatal. So having a single gene for sickle cell anemia is common to about 50% of those populations. That's a balanced polymorphism.

[/ QUOTE ]

It is, yes, 1 gene = fitter (and reproductive) 2 genes = quite unfit (though presumably even more resistant to malaria [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img] ) and less likely to reproduce. I cannot see how from there you get:

[ QUOTE ]
Gayness, for want of a better word, has selective advantages because we used to be a family-oriented culture. That is, we are social primates organized into family groups. The purpose of biological life is production and reproduction: staying alive and passing on your genes. To keep offspring alive long enough to reproduce themselves and pass on those genes, it makes reproductive sense to have as many resources as possible - protection, food, and so forth. Because siblings share genes, a non-reproducing ("gay") member of the family group, provides more protection for the young and can acquire more food resources. That member's genes reside in the offspring also.

[/ QUOTE ]

What is this - eusociality in early human primates? Sure, I understand the notion of kin selection, but time and again various eminently plausible ideas run into the problem that a gene which causes its bearer to be less likely to reproduce must have a profound effect on the probability of its kin to survive in order for this 'back-door selection' to occur. Where are you getting this? I mean it's a nice theory, I suppose it could be true - I just don't see it. It appears as though you've started with the idea that gayness must be reproductively fit (not unreasonable) but that leads you, as soon as you see a plausible evolutionary niche for it, to proclaim this as established fact. Is there some documented evidence that gay people are better at looking after kids? That people feel a sense of primal 'rightness' (similar to that say of catching a fish, gutting and cooking it yourself) when they leave their children in the care of a gay relative? Such a feeling would not be real evidence of any particular kind - but it is what I would expect to find if what you say is the complete truth or even a sketch of it.

[ QUOTE ]
Ejecting gay persons from our families and communities is counter to reproductive success for the population as a whole.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not anymore, by your own lights. I say ejecting gay persons from our families and communities is morally repugnant on the grounds of human liberty.