Oops. I suck too. Sorry, Otto.
Where do you get this from?
I don’t know if they commonly had same-sex marriages, but the ancient Romans believed that a man could only truly love another man. In fact, it wasn’t until Christianity became widespread that Rome fell… hmm… 
That’s because in Roman eyes a woman was a lower form of life. The love between men didn’t necessarily have to be sexual in nature but it would still be superior to the love of a woman.
Marc
Um, I worked with a guy once who was incredibly femme-high lispy voice, limp wrists, tall and skinny, etc etc.
But he wasn’t gay. Turns out, his dad died when he was two, and he had two older sisters and one younger sister-he had grown up around females his entire life, with no male role models, and just naturally tended to be a little on the femme side. Either way, he was a really cool guy.
Well, and also, a distinction needs to be made between Republican Rome and Imperial Rome, especially later Imperial Rome…while, later in its history, homosexuality was more commonly accepted, Republican Rome, for the most part condemned it, and in fact, it was punishable by death in the legions.
Well, speaking strictly for myself, you gave me the distinct impression you were straight in this thread when you said “And i wouldn’t mind having some lesbian action in my yearbook, either…” among other things. I thought only straight guys got turned on by lesbians. Tho perhaps I am wrong about this…hmmm…where’s that “Ask a Gay Guy” thread when you need it?
When once discussing the issue of gay rights with someone, the point was raised that “being gay means you won’t reproduce, so it’s an evolutionary dead end.”
To which I responded:
a) I thought you refused to accept the theory of evolution? (haha, cheap shot but it worked - not really relevant to this discussion)
b) Just because something is an evolutionary dead end doesn’t mean it’s “wrong”. Evolution has no moral aspect, it is just an aspect of the existence of organic lifeforms.
c) Just because the characteristic of a particular individual does not serve passing on of its genes, doesn’t mean that the characteristic doesn’t serve the species as a whole. The only example that came to mind: With hive insects, many of the workers are sterile.
Any comments from the bright minds at the SDMB?
True. I should have clarified that while you’d be likely to win if it were a bet, it’s not a sure thing that anyone at a gay bar or in a pride parade is gay. I have seen straight people in gay bars, I’ve even seen straight couples. Heck, I know a woman who went to a gay bar and was disappointed that not one man hit on her all night! And yes, she did know it was a gay bar.
Good points Arnold
I can’t lay claim to the title ‘bright mind’ but if homosexuality does have a genetic aspect, it would seem that it’s not an inherited one. Makes me wonder whether it was always there (kind of built in somehow) but the environment was less than ideal for it to be expressed (that’s changing now).
I was going to say (off the top of my head) that maybe it is an evolutionary thing; some sort of programming to bypass overpopulation without frustrating the needs of the individual (and thus maybe turning them into a threat), but I think this might be an unacceptable viewpoint and I wouldn’t like to be made to defend it.
Arnold Winkelried how often do gay people not reproduce compared to the average population? They like everyone else usually want children at some point in their lives. It may not be as easy for them to do it but they certainly can.
Sterra that’s a good objection. In humans, we understand that sexual relations with a member of the opposite sex are the way (well, no longer the only way) to reproduce, so a gay person desirous of passing on his/her genes would engage in such an activity.
However, in the case of another species (let’s take the duckbill platypus as an example), would ms. platypus have the understanding that it is necessary for her to engage in sexual relations with mr. platypus in order to reproduce? Or (assuming that the duckbill platypus has pleasure in the sex act, and assuming that some duckbill platypuses are gay), would a lesbian ms. platypus rebuff male advances, find pleasure with another lesbian platypus, and thus end up childless? As far as I know, pleasure in the sex act is an evolutionary trait to encourage members of a dual-sex species to pass on their genes.
I think it’s an evolutionary “thing” also, but my theory would be that it just happens as part of the “roll of the dice” that occurs during mitosis, not because there is any long-term or species-wide evolutionary advantage.
It seemed to me that in addition to a Great Debate, this thread had an IMHO discussion in it somewhere too.
So, I started one.
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=79394
I was thinking maybe a completely random mutation might lie unexpressed in a certain population, but be absent in others, unexpressed that is, until triggered by crowd pressure; so the population with the mutation starts to include homosexual individuals, who, although fulfilled on a personal level, aren’t escalating the crowding problem, meanwhile the other population (without the mutation) carries on merrily breeding until they are at the very limit of sustainability in their particular niche, then some fairly minor event can have a devastating effect on theor numbers, however, the population with the mutation is not so badly affected and the breeding individuals (who also carry the mutation) get to continue their particular strain. Very much like a hive thing.
As I said though, It’s just a thought, maybe not a very good one.
I think I remember a documentary on a species of Macaws (either scarlet or greenwing) where some of the sexually mature member chose not to breed. Instead, this species tended to form extended family groups to tend to the young of the members who did breed. So the non-breeding aunts and uncles weren’t themselves breeding, but they were helping to continue the passing of thier genes by helping their sibling’s offspring. (Did that make any sense?)
I’d be most interested to see whether there’s any statistical data to suggest that (human)homosexuals take more interest in the offspring of their close relatives.
I think this would be a difficult study, because there are other factors involved. Perhaps Gay Uncle Bob really wants to be involved with the lives of his nieces and nephews, but his siblings think homosexuality is evil and don’t want Bob anywhere near their kids.
Sure, in fact they might also see his increased interest as suspicious too; many people mentally (often without consciously doing so) aggregate homosexuals and child-molesters into one category ‘perverts’