Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: 668 - Neighbor of the Beast
Yes, but if it’s genetic...which I doubt...throughout history women have had little or no say in matters of reproduction. They were given in marriage to whomever their parents chose. There was no birth control. Not to mention all the non-marital situations. Marry she usually did, and procreate she did, even the humpbacked woman that Thackeray postulated. So about half of any genetic source of homosexuality was not self-eliminating.

Sorry, but I don't accept the notion that all men were natural rapists until 100 years ago and that proclivity for reproductive sex has no bearing on the number of offspring. I too doubt that it is purely genetic.

34 posted on 05/04/2008 4:12:31 AM PDT by SampleMan (We are a free and industrious people, socialist nannies do not become us.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies ]


To: SampleMan

It isn’t a notion, it’s a historical fact. And “natural rapists” is your spin. The men didn’t have much choice about marriage either, people married for social and economic reasons of their elders.
In ancient times (not to mention the Stone Age or prior), the idea that women ought to choose their own mates would have been funny — or decidedly not.


35 posted on 05/04/2008 6:45:16 AM PDT by 668 - Neighbor of the Beast
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson