Given that homosexuality has been around since the days of the Ancient Greeks (and indeed before them), then can it not be argued that evolution has failed to eradicate this characteristic?
I don't think there's much credibility to the notion that each homosexual person is the descendant of a line of closet homosexuals so a "gay gene" seems a bit implausible. There might be genetic make ups that increase the possibility of someone being gay but doubt there's a yes/no specific one.
I thought somebody would pick me up on that, so I left it in there. [P.S. If everything could be explained by Darwin's theory of evolution, then how do you explain David Wheater?]
I have no idea if I'm honest about it. Take Will Young, for example. He's gay and yet I believe his twin brother is not (?) I'd always thought that twins shared the same genetic blueprint, so I'm certainly none the wiser. Interesting topic, though.
Not if homosexuals nevertheless procreated like hetrosexuals. The problem is, most of those Ancient Greeks and Romans behaved like bi-sexuals. They swung one way when they were at home with the Mrs, another when they were marching off to war.
Having difficulty equating the moral compass focusing on a recently married teacher / schoolgirl fling and the question of homosexuality. Dragging the ball a bit wide of the mark imho. Only connecting point I can think of is why we fancy who we fancy... if there's a gay gene, then there's probably a similar one determining all other attractions - or is it all as random as we'd like to think? The issue we were discussing was about the moral aspect in attractions to other people's children. Adding homosexuality into the mix imo unnecessarily complicates the issue at this stage.
But isn't that the point? Nature, evolution, or whatever other force or entity you care to attribute to it, has conspired to find a way to preserve homosexuality. Whether you care for it or not, it exists and it ain't going away. So, it's not really worth making the sort of disparaging remarks made earlier on this thread.
Certainly agree with you about the disparaging remarks. No call for that. I'm just saying that it can't be tested whether homosexuality will die out through evolution, if homosexuals have behaved like hetrosexuals throughout a large part of history. Anyway there it is, now what...bring on West Ham!
Very Good. I'm already debating with myself whether I should even look at this Forum if things go awry on Mon.
I'll try (at least you didn't have to shut the thread). At what age does anyone think that independence should be recognised? The law says 16 for sex, 18 for smoking and voting and then criminal activity is prosecuted as an adult starting from 18 going down to as little as 10 for murder if the courts choose (I think - I'm no legal eagle). It's a very warped mixture of ages probably based on tradition for many of them (changing established laws can't be easy) but, in the context of a 15 year old doing a runner with her irresponsible teacher, very relevant.
Given our post-pubescent development (in general, not just this day and age), I reckon 16's about the right age for the burden of adult responsibility - in all things. It a reasonable compromise between parental and adolescent needs.
