|
I think people forget that sexuality isn't a simple physical trait like a foot. Many things contribute to it and many are hard to measure or assess their contribution.
Selection, as we know, will favour a trait that results in your genes being passed on more frequently. So there is obviously a large selection pressure towards men wanting to shag women. There is also an obvious selection pressure towards your knob feeling good when it is rubbed to encourage procreation but the side effects of this is that knobs get rubbed a great deal without resulting in procreation as a side effect.
Many breeding systems, again the result of selection, encourage monogamous relationships particularly where significant child rearing is required yet you find that there is also a great deal of cheating (sneaky fucking as Biologists like to call it) because the danger of monogamy is that you have chosen a sterile partner or one with rubbish genes.
The point I'm making, badly, is that each of these traits are selected for yet there are implications beyond the part of the trait that is selected for. It doesn't take much of an imagination to realise that something as powerful as our desire to have sex can be sidetracked.
It could be nurture (bad experience in childhood etc), it could be developmental (surge, or lack of, the correct sex hormone in the womb) or genetic (a gene linkage between something essential and the alleged gay gene at the chromosomal level).
One thing is for sure is that is isn't homologous or even analogous to choosing a new haircut.
|