[quote=spdrun]You miss my point — in primitive, tribal societies, people not procreating could make or break a clan. Nowadays, we have enough people to go around, so the 10% of homosexuals that happen to exist (and not breed “naturally”) aren’t a huge survival risk.
And actually, recessive traits that don’t permit procreation don’t disappear … think of Tay-Sachs Disease or anything that causes children to die young. I do realize that homosexuality is more complicated than that, but it’s not as simple as you make out either.[/quote]
First of all, i wasnt refering to homosexuality, just your consistent anti-having kids viewpoint. And actually, given enough time, they do almost disappear, unless there is a selective advantage to being heterozygous. For example sickle cell anemia requires two recessive genes; those with only one sickle cell gene are more resistant to malaria. There is some suggestion that people heterozygous for Tay Sachs are more resistant to tuberculosis, which was an advantage for most of history. And it’s too long to go into, but natural selection acts at the level of the individual. If you have a gene that makes you less likely to procreate than the girl or guy next door, their gene will slowly gain representation in the population and yours will slowly become vanishingly small, unless there is a heterozygote advantage.
