Dee Dee Ramone was playing with his wife Barbara Ramone in the “Remains”, the last time I saw him, around 2005. So he is probably still in music. I don’t know anything about the gay prostitutes, or the drag, it sounds like the NY Dolls to me. I didn’t see any of that when I first visited CBGB’s in the late 1980’s, I just saw a dilapidated neighborhood, $4 Budweisers, people who liked music, and rock ‘n’ roll.
Well then Dee Dee is not involved in music anymore. I had thought he was still here. I guess it was earlier than 2002 that I saw him with the Remains, but couldn’t have been much earlier.
IMO, homosexuality is an expression of nature’s diversity. I see it as a normal evolutionary function in a species of our complexity. Homosexuals may not necessarily contribute to procreation, but many have special and unique qualities which are beneficial to humanity in other ways, such as in the arts, design and a host of other endeavors. History is filled with outstanding and productive homosexual humans. What is wrong with a male who has a typically female personality and instincts, or a female who has a typically male personality and instincts? I see it as an affirmation of nature’s infinite variety.
This old dogma of “go forth and multiply” is becoming rather stale, in view of the fact that we can’t even feed the world’s population today.
Social pressure for men to procreate is exactly why homosexuality has been passed on in genes!
If you are homosexual it is because your homosexual ancestor had children!
What is true is that with the acceptance of homosexuality in our culture, homosexuality will be wiped out in a few generations because they don’t have the pressure to hide anymore by actually marrying and having children.
Homosexuality won’t exist in 1,000 years because homosexuality is genetic, not cultural.
What is true is that with the acceptance of homosexuality in our culture, homosexuality will be wiped out in a few generations because they don’t have the pressure to hide anymore by actually marrying and having children.
This assumes sexual preference and the drive to have children are the same thing. I doubt this since many gay couples go out of their way to have biological children, and more would likely do so if it became widely accepted and legally eqivalent to heterosexual reproduction. Remember that ultimate (in the evolutionary biology sense meaning related to fitness) cause of a behavior and the proximate (immediate mechanism) cause of a behavior aren’t identical. I eat because I’m hungry, and I’m hungry because of a complex chemical symphony playing in my brain. But I also eat because if I didn’t I would die and the genes that failed to generate that symphony wouldn’t be passed on.
This thesis also ignores the fact that complex gene combination responsible for high-order behaviors (as opposed to reflexes and such) like sexual preference have multiple effects and are influence by the activity of other genese, epigentic factors, environment, and so on. It is perfectly plausible that the gene patterns leading to homosexual urges have other acions which convey a selective advantage great enough perpetuate them even if in some individuals they lead to a failure to reproduce. It is an overly simplistic view of evolution and behavior to imagine that a simple “gay gene” leads to failure to reproduce unless cultural forces force reproduction (which would seem unlikley to succeed anyway since many straight people fail to reproduce for a wide variety of reasons), and that without this cultural coercion gay people will stop having children and homosexuality will cease to exist.
What is true is that with the acceptance of homosexuality in our culture, homosexuality will be wiped out in a few generations because they don’t have the pressure to hide anymore by actually marrying and having children.
This assumes sexual preference and the drive to have children are the same thing. I doubt this since many gay couples go out of their way to have biological children, and more would likely do so if it became widely accepted and legally eqivalent to heterosexual reproduction. Remember that ultimate (in the evolutionary biology sense meaning related to fitness) cause of a behavior and the proximate (immediate mechanism) cause of a behavior aren’t identical. I eat because I’m hungry, and I’m hungry because of a complex chemical symphony playing in my brain. But I also eat because if I didn’t I would die and the genes that failed to generate that symphony wouldn’t be passed on.
This thesis also ignores the fact that complex gene combination responsible for high-order behaviors (as opposed to reflexes and such) like sexual preference have multiple effects and are influence by the activity of other genese, epigentic factors, environment, and so on. It is perfectly plausible that the gene patterns leading to homosexual urges have other acions which convey a selective advantage great enough perpetuate them even if in some individuals they lead to a failure to reproduce. It is an overly simplistic view of evolution and behavior to imagine that a simple “gay gene” leads to failure to reproduce unless cultural forces force reproduction (which would seem unlikley to succeed anyway since many straight people fail to reproduce for a wide variety of reasons), and that without this cultural coercion gay people will stop having children and homosexuality will cease to exist.
And homosexuals can and have produced children, just not by their chosen partner.
Yes, and it also ignores the fact that the first homosexual came from a hetero couple.
...ahem…and all subsequent homosexuals came from hetero couples, or at least a hetero coupling since parthenogenesis is not yet possible for our species!
Yes, and it also ignores the fact that the first homosexual came from a hetero couple.
...ahem…and all subsequent homosexuals came from hetero couples, or at least a hetero coupling since parthenogenesis is not yet possible for our species!
Strictly speaking, the hetero “coupling” you mention could involve a homosexual partner. The first homosexual did however come from a true heterosexual couple. So the premise stating that if homosexuals stop having babies (through hetero coupling) then there will be no more homosexuals is clearly false.
In a theory, homosexuality could be a byproduct of some other adaptation. If natural selection selected against that particular trait, homosexuality could disappear. In a theory.
I had thought he was still here. I guess it was earlier than 2002 that I saw him with the Remains, but couldn’t have been much earlier.
