Because statistically speaking, if you take a sample of people, about 10% of them will be gay.
However, PhxMike does not take into account that it is entirely possible that the subset of the population that is gay is disjoint from the subset that is interested in being president.
So statistically speaking, we really have no evidence.
If != is the same as <>, I have to disagree. From a natural selection standpoint same sex couples do not reproduce. Natural selection doesn't care about artificial insemination, in vitro fertilization, etc.
Natural selection would select against a "gay gene" because it would not favor propagation of the species. Natural selection is the process by which favorable heritable traits become more common in successive generations of a population of reproducing organisms, and unfavorable heritable traits become less common, due to differential reproduction of genotypes. Gayness would be an unfavorable heritable trait.
I feel I have respond for I read several misconceptions about gays, about genetics and about evolution here...
First of all, yes many gay people do reproduce, many of them are even married to people of the opposite sex for instance, it is not uncommon for gay people to suppres their homosexual feelings for a while and try if a heterosexual relation works for them. I once took part in a gay discussion group and I was amazed to find out that I was one of the only ones that actually did not have children!
Having said that it is probably true that the average gay person will reproduce less compared to the average heterosexuel person. And scientific studies show that being gay has a genetic component of about 30-40%. That could indeed mean that the gene(s) responsible would become less and less common with each generation. Now we do not know yet which gene(s) are at play here. But it would be very strange for such a negative characteristic (evolutionary speaking) to become present in the population at such a high rate as it currently is! So it is more than likely that the "gay-gene" has some very positive effects as well which balance the fact that gay people reproduce less.
For instance it has been speculated that a gene involved in male homosexuality could actually increase fertility when present in females. So even while the gay man would have less children himself, his mother, aunts, and sisters (with the gene!) might have more children, and in turn pass on this gay gene to their sons. Another theory sais that men who do not have children themselves might provide extra care and food to the families of their brothers and sisters, incresing the survival rates of blood relatives (who because of the family relation have a high chance of also carrying the gay gene in this case). Just to illustrate that things are not so straightforward in genetics and evolution. Some deadly genetic diseases are for instance coupled to resistance to diseases that were very deadly in the past like malaria.
I have seen figures that seem reliable that give a figure of 6-7%. And many gay people reproduce. It might be helpful to find out what the figures are on homosexuality in other species (all observed have demonstrated homosexuality). Anyone? I mean, anyone with information, not opinions?
Here is what seems a reliable link that, while not giving absolute figures, does discuss the relative incidence of homosexuality in a number of species:
Well that assumes you believe "gays" don't have sex with people of the opposite sex. Watch MTV sweetie, give a "gay" a couple shots and there all over girls.
I would say 99.9% of "gays" have had sex with a girl a one point in their life. And i would say 90% of "gays" have had sex with a woman while they identify as "gay".
And you thought it was safe to let your girlfriend go to the club with her "gay friend".
From a natural selection perspective, gays DO reproduce. Especially when not allowed open behavior and must marry a 'beard.' Of course, there are species like the bonobo which are universally bisexual.
Exactly my point. By the way it has been well established that several members of the Dutch royal family, including on of our kings were gay. Now these people were not elected of course. But their true sexual identity was probably a public secret. But as long as it was not discussed everyone could pretend they had a perfect marriage.
Who really cares? As long as the pres does a good job. As long as we don't have a transvestite or a cross dresser, it doesn't matter what the sexual preferences are, as far as I'm concerned.
I wouldn't mind an openly crossdressing person either. Again as long as the job was done well. My only issue with a cross dresser would probably be the importance that that person would put on outer appearance. I think a president should not be overly bothered by such details - (actually the same you are by not accepting a cross dresser I suppose...)
Community votes are collected from you and other visitors to Ask500People. Independent votes are collected from visitors to hundreds of other websites around the world.
Sign Up or Login
Sorry, this data is only available to users with an account.
Loading...
How do you know there wasn't one already?
Statistically, it is almost certain there have been at least 4 or 5.
Yup!
There was some speculation about Lincoln in a book recently.
(I am SO gonna get voted down and harassed for that comment.)
How about voted up instead?
Thank you!
Hmmm...apparently there was speculation about Buchanan as well.
Almost certain? How do you figure that?
Because statistically speaking, if you take a sample of people, about 10% of them will be gay.
However, PhxMike does not take into account that it is entirely possible that the subset of the population that is gay is disjoint from the subset that is interested in being president.
So statistically speaking, we really have no evidence.
My point exactly. Plus I'm not sanguine on the 10% number either. Natural selection would work against 10% of the population not reproducing.
According to this, it is probably closer to 2-3%.
http://www.familyresearchinst.org/FRI_AIM_Talk.html
This comment was deleted.
[2 points] 46 days ago by deleted user ReplyIf != is the same as <>, I have to disagree. From a natural selection standpoint same sex couples do not reproduce. Natural selection doesn't care about artificial insemination, in vitro fertilization, etc.
This comment was deleted.
[0 points] 46 days ago by deleted user ReplyNatural selection would select against a "gay gene" because it would not favor propagation of the species. Natural selection is the process by which favorable heritable traits become more common in successive generations of a population of reproducing organisms, and unfavorable heritable traits become less common, due to differential reproduction of genotypes. Gayness would be an unfavorable heritable trait.
This comment was deleted.
[2 points] 46 days ago by deleted user ReplyI feel I have respond for I read several misconceptions about gays, about genetics and about evolution here...
First of all, yes many gay people do reproduce, many of them are even married to people of the opposite sex for instance, it is not uncommon for gay people to suppres their homosexual feelings for a while and try if a heterosexual relation works for them. I once took part in a gay discussion group and I was amazed to find out that I was one of the only ones that actually did not have children!
Having said that it is probably true that the average gay person will reproduce less compared to the average heterosexuel person. And scientific studies show that being gay has a genetic component of about 30-40%. That could indeed mean that the gene(s) responsible would become less and less common with each generation. Now we do not know yet which gene(s) are at play here. But it would be very strange for such a negative characteristic (evolutionary speaking) to become present in the population at such a high rate as it currently is! So it is more than likely that the "gay-gene" has some very positive effects as well which balance the fact that gay people reproduce less.
For instance it has been speculated that a gene involved in male homosexuality could actually increase fertility when present in females. So even while the gay man would have less children himself, his mother, aunts, and sisters (with the gene!) might have more children, and in turn pass on this gay gene to their sons. Another theory sais that men who do not have children themselves might provide extra care and food to the families of their brothers and sisters, incresing the survival rates of blood relatives (who because of the family relation have a high chance of also carrying the gay gene in this case). Just to illustrate that things are not so straightforward in genetics and evolution. Some deadly genetic diseases are for instance coupled to resistance to diseases that were very deadly in the past like malaria.
I have seen figures that seem reliable that give a figure of 6-7%. And many gay people reproduce. It might be helpful to find out what the figures are on homosexuality in other species (all observed have demonstrated homosexuality). Anyone? I mean, anyone with information, not opinions?
Here is what seems a reliable link that, while not giving absolute figures, does discuss the relative incidence of homosexuality in a number of species:
http://www.news-medical.net/?id=20718
From a natural selection perspective, gay people do NOT reproduce. ;o)
i.e., if there was a "gay gene" it would be quashed by natural selection.
Well that assumes you believe "gays" don't have sex with people of the opposite sex. Watch MTV sweetie, give a "gay" a couple shots and there all over girls.
I would say 99.9% of "gays" have had sex with a girl a one point in their life. And i would say 90% of "gays" have had sex with a woman while they identify as "gay".
And you thought it was safe to let your girlfriend go to the club with her "gay friend".
Wow... how insulting to gays. :o(
What..... that they have sex with woman..... are you saying there is an issue with woman?
From a natural selection perspective, gays DO reproduce. Especially when not allowed open behavior and must marry a 'beard.' Of course, there are species like the bonobo which are universally bisexual.
I'm pretty sure there has been at least one :).
And your evidence for that would be....?
Exactly my point. By the way it has been well established that several members of the Dutch royal family, including on of our kings were gay. Now these people were not elected of course. But their true sexual identity was probably a public secret. But as long as it was not discussed everyone could pretend they had a perfect marriage.
Statistically it would be close to impossible not to get one eventually, depending on how long the position lasts.
Could be? Sure. Will be? Sorry - my crystal ball is all misted up.
I voted 'No' because I make some (possibly unwarrantd) assumptions:
1. OPENLY gay.
2. In my lifetime (pure selfishness, that)
Without those assumptions, I would have to agree with TheSheep and PhxMike. Statistically, there almost certainly must have been.
Who really cares? As long as the pres does a good job. As long as we don't have a transvestite or a cross dresser, it doesn't matter what the sexual preferences are, as far as I'm concerned.
I have to agree, as long as he doesn't bother me..
Can you imagine President Lincoln addressing one of the houses of congress in a tutu. It would have clashed with his beard.
And all that on a Penny, not good at all, plus poor Mary.
I wouldn't mind an openly crossdressing person either. Again as long as the job was done well. My only issue with a cross dresser would probably be the importance that that person would put on outer appearance. I think a president should not be overly bothered by such details - (actually the same you are by not accepting a cross dresser I suppose...)
What if he goes to a meeting of all the Industrial Nations leaders and the color of his purse clashes with that of his shoes?