【2012-11-23】
@whigzhou: http://t.cn/zjUj48K Same sex orientation was found to be higher in maternal uncles and male cousins of the gay subjects.[13] An evolutionary model explained this finding in terms of increased fertility of the females in maternal lines, hence adding to net f(more...)
从同性恋纷争看文化宽容
辉格
2011年7月4日
吕丽萍在微博上以赞同的姿态转发了一位牧师的反同性恋言论，随即掀起轩然大波，引来多位演艺界同行站队表态，无数粉丝跟着声讨欢呼对骂起哄；从对阵局势看，反对吕丽萍的声音占了上风，很高比例的网友宣称要抵制她的作品，金马奖评奖委员会也已取消了对她的颁奖邀请。
从这场纷争中，我们可以真切的体会到，这些年来文化宽容和多元化在中国社会所取得的长足进展，就在十年前，公开谈论这样的话题多半会引来异样的一片目光，人们对性取向之类的话题更多的是回避和躲闪，而同性恋/双性恋人士公开自己的性取(more...)
整理旧文时，突然想到一个问题。
两年前我曾提出一个观点：文化宽容或许会大幅降低“同性恋/双性恋基因”的频率；今天又想了想，发现双性恋基因的麻烦还不止于此，避孕和亲子鉴定技术的普及或许是更大的威胁，逻辑是这样的：
前提仍然是同性恋的“副产品假说”，即，同性恋本身没有遗传优势，它是双性恋的副产品，而后者有显著遗传优势，是因为：1）性关系开始早；2）性伴数量多。
姑且假定，男性有两种性策略：顾家好男人和花花公子（实际上我认为主要策略有三种(more...)
laoyao把我关于文化宽容与同性恋关系的观点做了个重新表述：
从ESS的角度，你上次的文章也可以反过来说：
人类的反同性恋文化的出现，应该远在同性恋基因的出现之后。按照DNA贴的link的文章的说法，果蝇已经有这个基因，那应该是在人类出现的时候就已经携带了这个基因。因此，在人类的反同性恋文化出现时，同性恋基因在人群中应该已经达到了ESS的平衡。
但反同性恋文化的出现，改变了外在环境，使携带同性恋基因的人比以前更可能与异性生育后代，也就打破了平衡，使同性恋基因在人群中的比例反常地走高（但表现出来的同性恋性状不见得会更高）。
这其实是个双输的结果。对反同性恋的人来说，他们所痛恨的种子反而更广地传开。对携带同性恋基因的人来说，他们承受着先天与后天矛盾的痛苦，但这个痛苦本来也许只有1%（随便瞎举的数字）承受，现在却可能有3%的人承受。(more...)
laoyao把我关于文化宽容与同性恋关系的观点做了个重新表述：
从ESS的角度，你上次的文章也可以反过来说：
人类的反同性恋文化的出现，应该远在同性恋基因的出现之后。按照DNA贴的link的文章的说法，果蝇已经有这个基因，那应该是在人类出现的时候就已经携带了这个基因。因此，在人类的反同性恋文化出现时，同性恋基因在人群中应该已经达到了ESS的平衡。
但反同性恋文化的出现，改变了外在环境，使携带同性恋基因的人比以前更可能与异性生育后代，也就打破了平衡，使同性恋基因在人群中的比例反常地走高（但表现出来的同性恋性状不见得会更高）。
这其实是个双输的结果。对反同性恋的人来说，他们所痛恨的种子反而更广地传开。对携带同性恋基因的人来说，他们承受着先天与后天矛盾的痛苦，但这个痛苦本来也许只有1%（随便瞎举的数字）承受，现在却可能有3%的人承受。
所以，不是说现在社会对同性恋的宽容会导致同性恋的灭绝或减少，而只是让同性恋回到以前正常的状态。而我也想如同辉格上篇文章那样跳跃一下，得个启示说：宽容之后的比例，才是正常的本来该有的比例，任何外力恐怕都只能导致双输。
如果谁有心，可以调查一下各个不同文化下同性恋的比例。比如有的文化对同性恋完全不闻不问，有的甚至鼓励（部分古希腊），有的不反对、但强调男性生育（古代中国），有的强烈反对、处以极刑（中世纪，现代的某些伊斯兰国家），有的不犯法，但社会仍然有禁忌（现代中国、美国的某些地区）。有些文化风气的历史还太短，可能不能作为进化意义上的论据，还有些很难采集到数据，而且对古代社会，只能知道人们的表现，不能肯定是先天还是后天。不过假如能够比较准确地测出或推出同性恋基因的比例，并和毫无同性恋文化的原始部落想比较，那结果会很有价值。
这正是我想表达的意思。最后提出的调查，尽管很困难，但如果真花功夫去做，我相信中等程度的相关性大概能够找到。行为学和心理学的许多实验和统计方法，其想象力和设计之精妙，常常令人叹为观止。
一个细节有点异议，关于果蝇的研究，对讨论人类同性恋问题，只有启发意义，而没有证据价值；这两个物种的亲缘关系太远，依我看，它们的性别系统是两个物种在进化树上分化之后，各自发展出来的，它们的共同祖先很可能是无性的；实际上，跟眼睛一样，性别系统在进化史上被重新发明了多次，各自的基因基础和荷尔蒙机制都不是同源的。
DNA在对我《宽容是同性恋的坟墓？》一文的评论中，推荐了松鼠会介绍“亲缘选择假说”的文章：
博主认为对同性恋的绝对宽容会导致同性恋群体的数量减少，甚至消亡。这个证据不足。向博主推荐科学松鼠会的一篇文章，介绍同性恋基因的。“亲缘选择假说” 可能更靠谱。http://songshuhui.net/archives/8305.html
最近有一项研究显示，男同性恋的直系女性亲属（外婆、母亲、姐妹）的生殖力（生育的孩子的平均个数）比非(more...)
DNA在对我《宽容是同性恋的坟墓？》一文的评论中，推荐了松鼠会介绍“亲缘选择假说”的文章：
博主认为对同性恋的绝对宽容会导致同性恋群体的数量减少，甚至消亡。这个证据不足。向博主推荐科学松鼠会的一篇文章，介绍同性恋基因的。“亲缘选择假说” 可能更靠谱。http://songshuhui.net/archives/8305.html
最近有一项研究显示，男同性恋的直系女性亲属（外婆、母亲、姐妹）的生殖力（生育的孩子的平均个数）比非同性恋的女性亲属高。这也是支持“亲缘选择假说” 的新证据吧。
谢谢DNA的推荐。同性恋的“亲缘选择假说”很有意思，作为“双性恋副产品假说”的平行假说，在关于同性恋的讨论中值得关注。不过该假说与我的“文化约束假说”（姑且这么称呼吧）并不互斥，因为这两者分别处于均衡等式的两侧。
根据ESS理论，均衡态下的每种基因型，其遗传总收益应是大致相等的，也就是说，各种性取向，如果它们在人口中的相对比例是稳定的，那么任何一种都不比其他取向拥有额外的遗传优势，在某方面损失了，必定在其他方面得到补偿。
无论“副产品假说”还是“亲缘选择假说”，针对的都是均衡等式的收益一侧，而我的“文化约束假说”则是针对等式的成本一侧，因此它与前两种假说都不会存在互斥关系。我在原文中说：直觉上，同性恋的遗传损失很大，缺乏对异性的兴趣似乎会大大减少留下后代的机会。而我的假说，正是对这一直觉判断的修正：在严苛的文化和伦理约束下，同性恋的遗传损失并没有看上去那么大。然而，文化宽容倒是会让原本被文化伦理约束住的巨额损失成为现实。
实际上，还有一个文化因素也对同性恋的遗传损失大有影响，那就是单偶制的严格程度，或者说婚外关系的频度。单偶制越不严格，婚外关系频度越高，同性恋的机会遗传成本越高，其背后的逻辑，看过此前讨论的朋友，应该不难得出。而这一因素的发展前景，显然也不利于同性恋基因。
摘自Matt Ridley的Genome: the autobiography of a species in 23 chapters，第8章CHROMOSOMES X AND Y Conflict：
……Forgive the digression into intelligence. Let’s get back to sex. Probably one of the most sensational, controversial and hotly dis puted genetic discoveries was the announcement by Dean Hamer in 1993 that he had found a gene on the X chromosome that had a powerful influence on sexual orientation, or, as the media quickly called it, ‘a gay gene’.11
Hamer’s study was one of several published about the same time all pointing towards the conclusion that homo sexuality was ‘biological’ — as opposed to being the consequence of cultural pressure or conscious choice. Some of this work was done by gay men themselves, such as the neuroscientist Simon LeVay of the Salk Institute, keen to establish in the public mind what they were convinced about in their own minds: that homosexuals were ‘born that way’. They believed, with some justice, that prejudice would be less against a lifestyle that was not a deliberate ‘choice’ but an innate propensity. A genetic cause would also make homo sexuality seem less threatening to parents by making it clear that gay role models could not turn youths gay unless they had the propensity already. Indeed conservative intolerance of homosexual ity has recently taken to attacking the evidence for its genetic nature. “We should be careful about accepting the claim that some are “born to be gay”, not just because it is untrue, but because it provides leverage to homosexual rights organisations’, wrote the Conservative Lady Young in the Daily Telegraph on 29 July 1998.
But however much some of the researchers may have desired a particular outcome, the studies are objective and sound. There is no room for doubt that homosexuality is highly heritable. In one study, for example, among fifty-four gay men who were fraternal twins, there were twelve whose twin was also gay; and among fifty-six gay men who were identical twins, there were twenty-nine whose twin was also gay. Since twins share the same environment, whether they are fraternal or identical, such a result implies that a gene or genes accounts for about half of the tendency for a man to be gay. A dozen other studies came to a similar conclusion.12
Intrigued, Dean Hamer decided to seek the genes that were involved. He and his colleagues interviewed no families with gay male members and noticed something unusual. Homosexuality seemed to run in the female line. If a man was gay, the most likely other member of the previous generation to be gay was not his father but his mother’s brother.
That immediately suggested to Hamer that the gene might be on the X chromosome, the only set of nuclear genes a man inherits exclusively from his mother. By comparing a set of genetic markers between gay men and straight men in the families in his sample, he quickly found a candidate region in Xq28, the tip of the long arm of the chromosome. Gay men shared the same version of this marker seventy-five per cent of the time; straight men shared a different version of the marker seventy-five per cent of the time. Statistically, that ruled out coincidence with ninety-nine per cent confidence. Subsequent results reinforced the effect, and ruled out any connection between the same region and lesbian orientation.
To canny evolutionary biologists, such as Robert Trivers, the suggestion that such a gene might lie on the X chromosome immedi ately rang a bell. The problem with a gene for sexual orientation is that the version that causes homosexuality would quite quickly become extinct. Yet it is plainly present in the modern population at a significant level. Perhaps four per cent of men are definitively gay (and a smaller percentage bisexual). Since gay men, are, on average, less likely to have children than straight men, the gene would be doomed to have long since dwindled in frequency to vanishing point unless it carried some compensating advantage.
Trivers argued that, because an X chromosome spends twice as much time in women as it does (more...)
……Forgive the digression into intelligence. Let's get back to sex. Probably one of the most sensational, controversial and hotly dis puted genetic discoveries was the announcement by Dean Hamer in 1993 that he had found a gene on the X chromosome that had a powerful influence on sexual orientation, or, as the media quickly called it, 'a gay gene'.11 摘自Matt Ridley的Genome: the autobiography of a species in 23 chapters，第8章CHROMOSOMES X AND Y Conflict：
Hamer's study was one of several published about the same time all pointing towards the conclusion that homo sexuality was 'biological' — as opposed to being the consequence of cultural pressure or conscious choice. Some of this work was done by gay men themselves, such as the neuroscientist Simon LeVay of the Salk Institute, keen to establish in the public mind what they were convinced about in their own minds: that homosexuals were 'born that way'. They believed, with some justice, that prejudice would be less against a lifestyle that was not a deliberate 'choice' but an innate propensity. A genetic cause would also make homo sexuality seem less threatening to parents by making it clear that gay role models could not turn youths gay unless they had the propensity already. Indeed conservative intolerance of homosexual ity has recently taken to attacking the evidence for its genetic nature. "We should be careful about accepting the claim that some are "born to be gay", not just because it is untrue, but because it provides leverage to homosexual rights organisations', wrote the Conservative Lady Young in the Daily Telegraph on 29 July 1998.
But however much some of the researchers may have desired a particular outcome, the studies are objective and sound. There is no room for doubt that homosexuality is highly heritable. In one study, for example, among fifty-four gay men who were fraternal twins, there were twelve whose twin was also gay; and among fifty-six gay men who were identical twins, there were twenty-nine whose twin was also gay. Since twins share the same environment, whether they are fraternal or identical, such a result implies that a gene or genes accounts for about half of the tendency for a man to be gay. A dozen other studies came to a similar conclusion.12
Intrigued, Dean Hamer decided to seek the genes that were involved. He and his colleagues interviewed no families with gay male members and noticed something unusual. Homosexuality seemed to run in the female line. If a man was gay, the most likely other member of the previous generation to be gay was not his father but his mother's brother.
That immediately suggested to Hamer that the gene might be on the X chromosome, the only set of nuclear genes a man inherits exclusively from his mother. By comparing a set of genetic markers between gay men and straight men in the families in his sample, he quickly found a candidate region in Xq28, the tip of the long arm of the chromosome. Gay men shared the same version of this marker seventy-five per cent of the time; straight men shared a different version of the marker seventy-five per cent of the time. Statistically, that ruled out coincidence with ninety-nine per cent confidence. Subsequent results reinforced the effect, and ruled out any connection between the same region and lesbian orientation.
To canny evolutionary biologists, such as Robert Trivers, the suggestion that such a gene might lie on the X chromosome immedi ately rang a bell. The problem with a gene for sexual orientation is that the version that causes homosexuality would quite quickly become extinct. Yet it is plainly present in the modern population at a significant level. Perhaps four per cent of men are definitively gay (and a smaller percentage bisexual). Since gay men, are, on average, less likely to have children than straight men, the gene would be doomed to have long since dwindled in frequency to vanishing point unless it carried some compensating advantage.
Trivers argued that, because an X chromosome spends twice as much time in women as it does in men, a sexually antagonistic gene that benefited female fertility could survive even if it had twice as large a deleterious effect on male fertility. Suppose, for example, that the gene Hamer had found determined age of puberty in women, or even something like breast size (remember, this is just a thought experiment). Each of those characteristics might affect female fertil ity. Back in the Middle Ages, large breasts might mean more milk, or might attract a richer husband whose children were less likely to die in infancy. Even if the same version of the same gene reduced male fertility by making sons attracted to other men, such a gene could survive because of the advantage it gave daughters.
Until Hamer's gene itself is found and decoded, the link between homosexuality and sexual antagonism is no more than a wild guess. Indeed, it remains a possibility that the connection between Xq28 and sexuality is misleading. Michael Bailey's recent research on homosexual pedigrees has failed to find a maternal bias to be a general feature. Other scientists, too, have failed to find Hamer's link with Xq28. At present it looks as if it may have been confined to those families Hamer studied. Hamer himself cautions that until the gene is in the bag, it is a mistake to assume otherwise.14
Besides, there is now a complicating factor: a completely different explanation of homosexuality. It is becoming increasingly clear that sexual orientation correlates with birth order. A man with one or more elder brothers is more likely to be gay than a man with no siblings, only younger siblings, or with one or more elder sisters. The birth order effect is so strong that each additional elder brother increases the probability of homosexuality by roughly one-third (this can still mean a low probability: an increase from three to four per cent is an increase of thirty-three per cent). The effect has now been reported in Britain, the Netherlands, Canada and the United States, and in many different samples of people.15
For most people, the first thought would be a quasi-Freudian one: that something in the dynamics of growing up in a family with elder brothers might predispose you towards homosexuality. But, as so often, the Freudian reaction is almost certainly the wrong one. (The old Freudian idea that homosexuality was caused by a pro tective mother and a distant father almost certainly confused cause and effect: the boy's developing effeminate interests repel the father and the mother becomes overprotective in compensation.) The answer probably lies, once more, in the realm of sexual antagonism.
An important clue lies in the fact that there is no such birth-order effect for lesbians, who are randomly distributed within their families. In addition, the number of elder sisters is also irrelevant in predicting male homosexuality. There is something specific to occupying a womb that has already held other males which increases the probability of homosexuality. The best explanation concerns a set of three active genes on the Y chromosome called the H-Y minor histocompatibility antigens. A similar gene encodes a protein called anti-Mullerian hormone, a substance vital to the masculinis ation of the body: it causes the regression of the Mullerian ducts in the male embryo — these being the precursors of the womb and Fallopian tubes. What the three H-Y genes do is not certain. They are not essential for the masculinisation of the genitals, which is achieved by testosterone and anti-Mullerian hormone alone. The significance of this is now beginning to emerge.
The reason these gene products are called antigens is because they are known to provoke a reaction from the immune system of the mother. As a result, the immune reaction is likely to be stronger in successive male pregnancies (female babies do not produce H-Y antigens, so do not raise the immune reaction). Ray Blanchard, one of those who studies the birth-order effect, argues that the H-Y antigens' job is to switch on other genes in certain tissues, in particu lar in the brain - and indeed there is good evidence that this is true in mice. If so, the effect of a strong immune reaction against these proteins from the mother would be partly to prevent the masculini sation of the brain, but not that of the genitals. That in turn might cause them to be attracted to other males, or at least not attracted to females. In an experiment in which baby mice were immunised against H-Y antigens, they grew up to be largely incapable of success ful mating, compared with controls, though frustratingly the experimenter did not report the reasons why. Likewise, male fruit flies can be irreversibly induced to show only female sexual behaviour by the switching on at a crucial point in development of a gene called 'transformer'.16
People are not mice or flies, and there is plenty of evidence that the sexual differentiation of the human brain continues after birth. Homosexual men are clearly not, except in very rare cases, 'mental' women trapped inside 'physical' men. Their brains must have been at least partly masculinised by hormones. It remains possible, how ever, that they missed some hormone during some early and crucial sensitive period and that this permanently affects some functions, including sexual orientation.
……
说明：说某一性状或行为具有基因基础，并不暗示该性状或行为完全由基因决定。
苏珊•布莱克摩尔（Susan Blackmore）则认为性倾向及其行为是有基因决定的，一种观点认为大部分有同性恋基因的人因为社会压力而过着“异性恋”的生活，与异性结婚并繁衍后代，按照这种观点，在进入资讯时代以后，认为同性恋下流低劣的人数会减少，因为人们会解决到更多的同性恋议题并逐渐接受这种现象和群体，进而，那些携带同性恋基因的人也就不会按照异性恋的生活方式来安排自己的生活，生育的现象在同性恋群体中将会减少。
西蒙•列维（Simon LeVay）关于同性恋男尸下丘脑的研究和Marc Breedloves关于生者的出生顺序以及手指长度比例研究，都显示出出生前荷尔蒙对性取向决定问题上所产生的影响，前者指出男性同性恋者的女性化趋势，后者则指出同性恋者，不论男性还是女性，都有男性化的趋势。
摘自维基百科“性取向”条目：
http://zh.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=性取向&variant=zh-cn
对非异性恋的研究和试验为另外一个观点开辟了道路：性取向是在孩童时期或更早的时候被固定的。对同性恋双胞胎的研究表明，如果其中一个人是同性恋，那么另一个人有40-60%的机会成为同性恋者；异卵双生的比率为15-30%。对于不是双胞胎的同性兄弟姐妹来说，这个比率是5-10%（参看：http://www.worldpolicy.org/americas/sexorient/twins.html 和 http://researchmag.asu.edu/stories/supporting.html ）。
对很多人来说，这些数据有力的表明了性取向的一个生物因素。对其他的人，包括引用的研究的三名作者中的两名（贝利和波勒德，Bailey&Pollard）则担心来自于同性恋鼓吹者杂志的读者可能会歪曲这个结果。
摘自wikepedia的Biology and sexual orientation条目：
标签：
说明：说某一性状或行为具有基因基础，并不暗示该性状或行为完全由基因决定。 苏珊•布莱克摩尔（Susan Blackmore）则认为性倾向及其行为是有基因决定的，一种观点认为大部分有同性恋基因的人因为社会压力而过着“异性恋”的生活，与异性结婚并繁衍后代，按照这种观点，在进入资讯时代以后，认为同性恋下流低劣的人数会减少，因为人们会解决到更多的同性恋议题并逐渐接受这种现象和群体，进而，那些携带同性恋基因的人也就不会按照异性恋的生活方式来安排自己的生活，生育的现象在同性恋群体中将会减少。 摘自维基百科“性取向”条目： 对非异性恋的研究和试验为另外一个观点开辟了道路：性取向是在孩童时期或更早的时候被固定的。对同性恋双胞胎的研究表明，如果其中一个人是同性恋，那么另一个人有40-60%的机会成为同性恋者；异卵双生的比率为15-30%。对于不是双胞胎的同性兄弟姐妹来说，这个比率是5-10%（参看：http://www.worldpolicy.org/americas/sexorient/twins.html 和 http://researchmag.asu.edu/stories/supporting.html ）。 摘自wikepedia的Biology and sexual orientation条目： Chromosome linkage studies Earlier chromosome studies of homosexuality in males have not been replicated, or have had doubt cast on these early suggestions. For example, in 1993, Dean Hamer and colleagues published findings from a linkage analysis of a sample of 76 gay brothers and their families.[15] Hamer et al. found that the gay men had more gay male uncles and cousins on the maternal side of the family than on the paternal side. Gay brothers who showed this maternal pedigree were then tested for X chromosome linkage, using twenty-two markers on the X chromosome to test for similar alleles. In another finding, thirty-three of the forty sibling pairs tested were found to have similar alleles in the distal region of Xq28, which was significantly higher than the expected rates of 50% for fraternal brothers. This was popularly (but inaccurately) dubbed as the 'gay gene' in the media, causing significant controversy. However, a later analysis by Hu et al. revealed that 67% of gay brothers in a new saturated sample shared a marker on the X chromosome at Xq28.[16] Sanders et al. (1998) replicated the study, finding 66% Xq28 marker sharing in 54 pairs of gay brothers.[17] On the other hand, two other studies (Bailey et al., 1999; McKnight and Malcolm, 2000) failed to find a preponderance of gay relatives in the maternal line of homosexual men.[17] Also, a study by Rice et al. in 1999 failed to replicate the Xq28 linkage results.[18] Additionally, Mustanski et al. (2005) performed a full-genome scan (instead of just an X chromosome scan) on individuals and families previously reported on in Hamer et al. (1993) and Hu et al. (1995), as well as additional new subjects.[19] With the larger sample set and complete genome scan, the study found much weaker link for Xq28 than reported by Hamer et al. However, they did find other markers with significant likelihood scores at 8p12, 7q36 and 10q26, the latter two having approximately equivalent maternal and paternal contributions. 这是上述条目的有关参考文献： ^ Rutter, M. (2006). Genes and Behavior. Oxford, UK: Blackwell Publishing.
西蒙•列维（Simon LeVay）关于同性恋男尸下丘脑的研究和Marc Breedloves关于生者的出生顺序以及手指长度比例研究，都显示出出生前荷尔蒙对性取向决定问题上所产生的影响，前者指出男性同性恋者的女性化趋势，后者则指出同性恋者，不论男性还是女性，都有男性化的趋势。
http://zh.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=性取向&variant=zh-cn
对很多人来说，这些数据有力的表明了性取向的一个生物因素。对其他的人，包括引用的研究的三名作者中的两名（贝利和波勒德，Bailey&Pollard）则担心来自于同性恋鼓吹者杂志的读者可能会歪曲这个结果。
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biology_and_sexual_orientation#Chromosome_linkage_studies
^ Hamer DH, Hu S, Magnuson VL, Hu N, Pattatucci AM (July 1993). "A linkage between DNA markers on the X chromosome and male sexual orientation". Science (journal) 261 (5119): 321–7. doi:10.1126/science.8332896. PMID 8332896.
^ Hu S, Pattatucci AM, Patterson C, et al (November 1995). "Linkage between sexual orientation and chromosome Xq28 in males but not in females". Nat. Genet. 11 (3): 248–56. doi:10.1038/ng1195-248. PMID 7581447.
^ a b Wilson, G.D., & Rahman, Q. (2005). Born Gay: The Biology of Sex Orientation. London: Peter Owen Publishers.
^ Vilain E (2000). "Genetics of sexual development". Annu Rev Sex Res 11: 1–25. PMID 11351829.
非常感谢子蛇和laoyao对我《宽容是同性恋的坟墓？》一文的评论，laoyao说：
这个思路我以前在Aaron Lynch的Thought Contagion里看到过。那个家伙是较早研究memetics的，但过度看重meme的垂直传播，这在internet时代其实已经比较次要了。但正因如此，他的书里讨论了大量meme和gene相互作用的案例，其中一个就是同性恋。这确实很有趣，我当时看了颇惊叹了一阵。
至于别人基于误读的抨击，大可不必理会。对同性恋的宽容，照我看是据于人权，跟同性恋是先天、后天，会繁荣还是会灭绝，都没关系。义理如此，其他论据不过是用来说服反对者的捷径，但整个宽容本身是建立在人和人之间的相互尊重这一最基本的原则上的。
况且宽容显然不会导致同性恋灭绝，只会导致减少，但减少之后又会慢慢地再反弹，最后应该是动态平衡的(gene and meme)evolutionary steady比例。辉格所说的消失，应该就是这个意思，不是说再没同性恋了，而是说没谁再对此大惊小怪了。就象美国人对肤色的看法的慢慢变化一样。
当然这么一个例子对于文章最后的结论还是显得有些薄弱，因为同性恋(more...)
这个思路我以前在Aaron Lynch的Thought Contagion里看到过。那个家伙是较早研究memetics的，但过度看重meme的垂直传播，这在internet时代其实已经比较次要了。但正因如此，他的书里讨论了大量meme和gene相互作用的案例，其中一个就是同性恋。这确实很有趣，我当时看了颇惊叹了一阵。
至于别人基于误读的抨击，大可不必理会。对同性恋的宽容，照我看是据于人权，跟同性恋是先天、后天，会繁荣还是会灭绝，都没关系。义理如此，其他论据不过是用来说服反对者的捷径，但整个宽容本身是建立在人和人之间的相互尊重这一最基本的原则上的。
况且宽容显然不会导致同性恋灭绝，只会导致减少，但减少之后又会慢慢地再反弹，最后应该是动态平衡的(gene and meme)evolutionary steady比例。辉格所说的消失，应该就是这个意思，不是说再没同性恋了，而是说没谁再对此大惊小怪了。就象美国人对肤色的看法的慢慢变化一样。
当然这么一个例子对于文章最后的结论还是显得有些薄弱，因为同性恋是个不利于繁衍的基因影响下的行为的特例。不过我还是同意辉格的结论，即“如果它仅仅是与你的价值观相悖，而没有伤害旁人，”那最后发展的结果必然是meme的evolutionary steady状态。这跟由基因变异推动生物进化的道理有点类似，但也不尽相同，不过那个话题就太大了。
最后想说的是，辉格认为“同性婚姻的合法化之争，更多的是一种名分之争”，我觉得不确切。婚姻不仅仅是双方的契约，也是社会和法律所认同的契约，因此，并不是两个人都同意就可以得到一切权利和保护，还需要从社会那里得到法律的承认和保护。比如异性夫妻领养小孩天经地义，但同性union在美国的很多州仍然不能领养小孩。甚至连通过了反歧视同性恋法的州都还没到一半。详情可见：http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_in_the_United_States
所以同性恋婚姻合法化，更多还是争取利益，不是意识形态。而这也使我对同性恋婚姻的前景感到乐观，因为争口气的激情容易消退，争利益的动机却会一直坚持下去。
我没读过Aaron Lynch，但我对meme的兴趣一直很浓，有空找来读一下。垂直或者窄通道的转播，虽然条件过于严苛，因而针对的范围过于狭窄，但人类历史的很长一段，传播的通道都是十分狭窄的，而那段时间，对人性和符号体系的塑造、对一些基本特征的建构，应该有着决定性的地位，其影响在可见的未来仍将是压倒性的；因而，正如进化生物学家以更新世稀树草原的狩猎采集生活，作为分析人性之基因基础的基本环境背景，当我们思考观念系统的深层结构和基本特征时，也应赋予早期背景同等重要性。 第二点，“这么一个例子对于文章最后的结论还是显得有些薄弱”，是的，所以我原本打算以此为引子进而说明北美殖民社区从早期的宗教极端主义盛行，到后来宗教宽容的发展过程，这个题材才更切合结尾处的那句话，可是受饭文写作的选题和篇幅限制，只好放弃了。 第三点，关于领养权的问题我的确了解不多，考虑到你提示的这些情况，加上我原本就搁置了的税收和福利优惠，我关于“名分之争”的说法需要修正，或许这只是问题的一半。非常感谢子蛇和laoyao对我《宽容是同性恋的坟墓？》一文的评论，子蛇说：
1、文中说了，同性恋是双性恋的一种极端情况，双性恋还会结婚生子，生下极端情形的。
2、同性恋倾向恐怕不仅仅是先天因素，似乎后天养成的也不少。
3、基因会变异，异性恋父母也会生出同性恋孩子。
首先我得承认，同性恋大概不会消失，我的观点的逻辑结果应该只是大比例减少，因此，这篇文章的题目确实有点哗众取宠，需要反省；其次，需要强调一下（虽然上下文已经暗示了），我文章后半部分专门针对男(more...)
非常感谢子蛇和laoyao对我《宽容是同性恋的坟墓？》一文的评论，子蛇说：
1、文中说了，同性恋是双性恋的一种极端情况，双性恋还会结婚生子，生下极端情形的。
2、同性恋倾向恐怕不仅仅是先天因素，似乎后天养成的也不少。
3、基因会变异，异性恋父母也会生出同性恋孩子。
首先我得承认，同性恋大概不会消失，我的观点的逻辑结果应该只是大比例减少，因此，这篇文章的题目确实有点哗众取宠，需要反省；其次，需要强调一下（虽然上下文已经暗示了），我文章后半部分专门针对男同性恋，而且是稳定的同性恋者，不包括那种受特定环境条件（比如监狱和军队）诱导下的偶发同性性行为。
子蛇的第一点我同意，但即便如此，基因向下传播的通道仍然被收窄了，所以在新的均衡点上，数量会大为减少，对吧？
第二，按我所采信的理论，决定性取向的诸多因素中，基因基础是首要的，其次是兄弟排行，至于成长环境是否存在非随机的影响，我存疑。
第三，异性恋父母会出同性恋孩子，这没错，但通常不是因为基因突变（这种情况的概率极小），而是因为受精卵减数分裂时的染色体重组，因为影响性取向的基因基础并非单一基因，而是分布在多个染色体上的一组基因，它们的特定组合才会导致同性恋，同性恋孩子的父母可能分别拥有该组合的一部分；所以，同性恋的同卵双胞胎兄弟也是同性恋的概率接近50%，而异卵双胞胎的相关性则低得多，只有不到20%。
（按二：此文发表后，遭到不少同性恋权利支持者的激烈抨击，他们从文中读出了这样的意思：我主张灭绝同性恋。阿弥陀佛~~）
（按一：最后一段言犹未尽，本想乘机说说美国各教派从偏激走向宽容的历史，可惜篇幅满了，再找机会吧）
宽容是同性恋的坟墓？
辉格
2009年2月12日
去年11月，就在美国自由派赢得总统和国会选举的同时，却在别处遭遇了一次出乎他们意料的失败。加利福尼亚选民在选举日除了对总统候选人投票，还要为一系列州内选举和表决投票，其中包括了禁止同性婚姻的八号提案。提案以52%的支持率通过，这一失败让自由派在半年前赢得的那场胜利化为乌有，当时，加州最高法院以4：3裁决同性婚姻合法。八号提案的通过随即全美80多个城市引发了一场大规模抗议，许多个人、团体、甚至地方政府向加州高院提起诉讼，法院已决定受理这些诉讼，并安排在下月初开庭。自由派的愤怒源自他们对失败的震惊，此前他们在舆论上已完全占据主导，支持提案的捐助者甚至不敢公开捐助记录，”沉默的多数”用选票说话了。
近年来，在同性恋社团和自由派的推动下，争取同性恋者权利的运动，在具有深厚保守传统的美国，正取得越来越多的进展。实际上，同性恋行为本身在美国早已得到保护，也就是说，从消极权利的角度看，同性恋者已拥有全部公民权利，他们现在主张的同性婚姻，实际上是在改变对婚姻的定义，从而创制一种与传统婚姻同等地位的新的民事关系，而正是这一条，遭到了保守派的强烈抵制。在基督教传统中，婚姻不仅是一种民事关系，还有深厚的宗教内涵，历史上，婚姻法作为教会法的一部分，独立于普通法，婚姻事务也一直由教会管辖。所以不难理解，保守派为何在此问题上如此顽固，这已经成为他们最后的防线。
现在，这条防线正在被突破。加州去年五月的裁决让它成为继马萨诸塞之后第二个承认同性婚姻的州，就在八号提案通过后几天，康涅狄格最高法院承认同性婚姻的裁决正式生效，而同性婚姻合法化法案正在佛蒙特、罗德岛、缅因和新罕布什尔(more...)
（按二：此文发表后，遭到不少同性恋权利支持者的激烈抨击，他们从文中读出了这样的意思：我主张灭绝同性恋。阿弥陀佛~~） （按一：最后一段言犹未尽，本想乘机说说美国各教派从偏激走向宽容的历史，可惜篇幅满了，再找机会吧） 宽容是同性恋的坟墓？ 去年11月，就在美国自由派赢得总统和国会选举的同时，却在别处遭遇了一次出乎他们意料的失败。加利福尼亚选民在选举日除了对总统候选人投票，还要为一系列州内选举和表决投票，其中包括了禁止同性婚姻的八号提案。提案以52%的支持率通过，这一失败让自由派在半年前赢得的那场胜利化为乌有，当时，加州最高法院以4：3裁决同性婚姻合法。八号提案的通过随即全美80多个城市引发了一场大规模抗议，许多个人、团体、甚至地方政府向加州高院提起诉讼，法院已决定受理这些诉讼，并安排在下月初开庭。自由派的愤怒源自他们对失败的震惊，此前他们在舆论上已完全占据主导，支持提案的捐助者甚至不敢公开捐助记录，"沉默的多数"用选票说话了。 近年来，在同性恋社团和自由派的推动下，争取同性恋者权利的运动，在具有深厚保守传统的美国，正取得越来越多的进展。实际上，同性恋行为本身在美国早已得到保护，也就是说，从消极权利的角度看，同性恋者已拥有全部公民权利，他们现在主张的同性婚姻，实际上是在改变对婚姻的定义，从而创制一种与传统婚姻同等地位的新的民事关系，而正是这一条，遭到了保守派的强烈抵制。在基督教传统中，婚姻不仅是一种民事关系，还有深厚的宗教内涵，历史上，婚姻法作为教会法的一部分，独立于普通法，婚姻事务也一直由教会管辖。所以不难理解，保守派为何在此问题上如此顽固，这已经成为他们最后的防线。 现在，这条防线正在被突破。加州去年五月的裁决让它成为继马萨诸塞之后第二个承认同性婚姻的州，就在八号提案通过后几天，康涅狄格最高法院承认同性婚姻的裁决正式生效，而同性婚姻合法化法案正在佛蒙特、罗德岛、缅因和新罕布什尔等多个州议会讨论。 撇开宗教内涵，从民法角度看，婚姻实际上就是一种涵盖了财产共享、继承和子女抚养等责任的民事契约；理论上，通过双方协商签约，婚姻关系像其他民事关系一样可以得到合同法的保护，而不需要专门的婚姻法，通过商定各种责任关系，每对夫妻都可以建立独特的婚姻关系；但实践上，婚姻契约涵盖的内容过于广泛，时间跨度又很大，如果每对夫妻都从头商议全部条款细节，交易费用大到无法接受；婚姻法恰好解决了这个问题，它提供了一种包含了大量默示条款的标准契约，其内容来自社会对于婚姻所含责任的普遍看法，同时，借助婚前协议，夫妻可以对契约内容进行个性化和微调。 从民法角度看，只要契约自由原则得到贯彻，同性婚姻是否被承认，其实对于争议双方都无关紧要（暂不考虑与婚姻有关的税收和福利优惠），想结婚的同性恋者，不妨订立这样的契约：我们同意承担异性夫妻在婚姻法下被规定的全部责任，直到任一方死亡或双方同意解除契约。同性恋社团也可以参照开源组织为开源软件所设计的GPL授权协议，为同性夫妻设计一套标准婚姻契约，按经验，美国法官是会承认这种契约的，这将是法律自发演进的经典模式。 如此看来，同性婚姻的合法化之争，更多的是一种名分之争，自由派希望通过不断突破一些社会心理禁区，来求得宽容同性恋的文化氛围，而这也正是保守派不愿看到的，在这方面，自由派显然获得了更多成果。然而有趣的是，双方都没有看到一种前景：恰恰是对同性恋的文化宽容，或许会在未来导致同性恋的急剧减少甚至灭绝。 对于进化生物学家，同性恋一直是个难题，这种看起来对个体繁衍有害无益的性状，不仅有基因基础，而且在各种族的基因库中拥有稳定的比例，好像跟天生不爱吃饭爱吃沙子一样奇怪。近年来有一种相对可信的理论认为，同性恋其实是双性恋的一种极端状态，而双性恋是有遗传优势的，这是因为双性恋者通常更早开始性行为，而且平均拥有数倍于单性恋者的性伴侣。正是双性恋的这种遗传优势，附带使同性恋作为其副产品也长期存在着。 在我看来，同性恋的存在还有一个重要的条件，那就是文化传统和伦理体系对娶妻生子的看重，在各种文化中，这都被视为人生头等大事。因而，在传统社会，同性恋者虽然对异性没兴趣，但为了履行伦理和家族义务，同样会娶妻生子；即使在当代，许多社会的同性恋者为了掩盖其性取向，也会娶妻生子。因此，在这种严苛的伦理约束下，同性恋者留下的后代通常并不比异性恋者少，这样同性恋基因便无法被排除出基因库。 显然，文化宽容将瓦解同性恋的这一存在基础，在同性行为被普遍接受、同性婚姻得到伦理正当性之后，同性恋不再需要履行娶妻生子义务，也不必用异性婚姻来掩盖性取向，于是，他们也就不再会留下后代了。这一结果，或许只要几代人时间就会在统计上表现出来。 从这一前景中，我们实际上可以得到一个更广泛的启示，那就是，对于一种罕见、奇特甚至令你反感的行为方式，如果它仅仅是与你的价值观相悖，而没有伤害旁人，那就最好宽容它；长期的宽容会让原本极端的行为融入主流，或许最终还会消失。
辉格
2009年2月12日
订阅