Homosexuality and evolution

[bizerta]

Being a hetrosexual, I know of few homosexuals. But those that I do know, and those famous homosexuals (Rock Hudson, Ellen Degeneres) have no children.

While nature occasionally causes deviation from our parents, it stands to reason that the children of hetrosexuals tend to be hetrosexuals. So, what causes the homosexual gene to be created as frequently as it does?

Are any other species known to have homosexual traits?

[johnny fishface]

I think the answer to your question is:
a) no one is 100% either way.
b) dolphins.

[Synergist]

You seem to be assuming the existence of a "homosexual gene". I suspect that things are not that simple. Last I heard, the genetic component of homosexuality was an unsettled question among geneticists. Did the human genome project identify one?

Also, your assumption that homosexuals don't have children is simply not correct. Melissa Etheridge, for example, is a lesbian and a mother.

[exchicagoan]

Originally posted by johnny fishface

a) no one is 100% either way.
.


I beg to differ with you.

Under NO CIRCUMSTANCE is another woman's body of ANY interest to me AT ALL. I'm ENVIOUS of the women with dynamite bodies; but that's it.

A CLASS, # 1, male crotch watcher here. I LOVE seeing DENNIS FARINA on a big screen. LOL.

[Upham]

Well friend, i hate to go a pickin at this, but i've got some time on my hands here.

Being a hetrosexual, I know of few homosexuals Well, i'm straight and i know several gay folks, along the same lines i'm white but i know blacks and dispite the shocking handycap of being a man, i even know some women (go figure on that last one)

it stands to reason that the children of hetrosexuals tend to be hetrosexuals

i've defiantly got to argue this one, what reason does this stand to? Aside from the fact that some homosexuals who might otherwise choose to come out might not do so because of socal pressure from their parents i can't see how a child born of hetero parents is more or less likely to be homosexual, one is what one is. By this logic then there must be a large portion of the Gay community who dont have parents

As for the "Homosexual Gene", assuming it exists, it's being passed on the exact same way all the other genes are being passed on, by that god damn stork.

Other species do exibit homosexual tendancies, including our closest cousins the Chimps, Monkeys and Cartman's dog on South Park

[choosybeggar]

Originally posted by bizerta

Are any other species known to have homosexual traits?

In addition to Dolphins: Penguins, Bonobos and Grizzly Bears (http://www.q.co.za/news/1999/9906/990615-animals.htm)

The OP may as well read: "Considering the behaviors of Catholic church clerics, how is the celibacy gene maintained?

Survey says "Nature + nurture"

[johnny fishface]

exchicagoan wrote:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by johnny fishface

a) no one is 100% either way.
.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


I beg to differ with you.

Under NO CIRCUMSTANCE is another woman's body of ANY interest to me AT ALL. I'm ENVIOUS of the women with dynamite bodies; but that's it.

A CLASS, # 1, male crotch watcher here. I LOVE seeing DENNIS FARINA on a big screen. LOL

ok, how about... most of our species is not 100% either way.

[Captain Amazing]

And, assuming there is a gene that causes homosexuality, it doesn't mean that the trait will neccesarily die out. For example, Tay-Sachs disease is genetic, and people who have Tay-Sachs have no chance at all of reproducing (They usually die by age 3), but it still exists. Some possiblities:

1. The gene could be recessive.
2. The gene could only activate in the presence of another gene.
3. The gene could only activate if specific environmental factors exist.

[mangeorge]

exchicagoan say's;
I beg to differ with you.
Under NO CIRCUMSTANCE is another woman's body of ANY interest to me AT ALL. I'm ENVIOUS of the women with dynamite bodies; but that's it.
Saw a movie once, named "Hot Babes in Prison" I think it was. :D
Never say never, exshy, ;)
Peace,
mangeorge

[astro]

Re the evolution aspect of the OP, environment aside (for the moment), the biological interplay of hormones, genes, etc. etc. that produces a predominately heterosexual human is extremely complex and given that more or less exclusively homosexual individuals are represented in approximately 3%-6% +/- of the total population there is really no danger that humans are going to go extinct anytime soon because of the lack of heterosexual activity.

In terms of means/end evolution it's something that human evolution (and other species where it is expressed as well) can "afford" without real damage. With respect to the "frequency" issue as a WAG I would suspect the biological underpinnings of what may cause a man or woman to tend to have gay offspring is probably correlated with some positive benefit that enhances genetic fitness such as intelligence, appearance, sexual attractiveness, physical stength, overall fabulousness or whatever, and the two traits march hand in hand.

[handy]

Why would a gene cause homosexuality? That makes no scientific sense & still doesn't.

Lots of animals are homosexuals. Lots of prisoners have sex with each other but that doesn't make them homosexuals.

Homosexuality is not black & white, its sort of gray with tonal ranges from 1 to 6.

[Chronos]

Are any other species known to have homosexual traits?Forget about dolphins and bonobos... There's actually a species of lizard in the American southwest which is 100% lesbian. They reproduce parthenogenically (http://www.straightdope.com/columns/991008.html), so they don't need to mate at all, but their fertility is apparently greatly incresed by two females going through the motions, as it were.

[Upham]

actually a species of lizard in the American southwest which is 100% lesbian

Isn't the Aphid born pregnant? What does that make it (aside from a good thing to think about when waiting for a bus)? Doesnt actually seem to have any sexual motions or anything, it's just a weirld little thing to ponder.

[exchicagoan]

Originally posted by mangeorge
exchicagoan say's;
I beg to differ with you.
Under NO CIRCUMSTANCE is another woman's body of ANY interest to me AT ALL. I'm ENVIOUS of the women with dynamite bodies; but that's it.
Saw a movie once, named "Hot Babes in Prison" I think it was. :D
Never say never, exshy, ;)
Peace,
mangeorge

LOL---being a "woman of a CERTAIN age"---if the one who would "change my mind" has't come along yet---she ain't gonna! PERIOD.

PAX

[NotWithoutRage]

Exchi, have you ever heard of the Kinsey scale? It assumes that there is a sexual tangent, like handy says, where 1 is exclusively heterosexual, and six is exclusively homosexual. Most people fall between 2 and 5, but there are certainly people, and you could be one of them, who fall at the extreme ends of the scale.

As for it being genetic, I'm queer, my dad is queer, his cousin is queer, their uncle is queer, and we're already speculating about the upcoming generation! (just kidding, not really!)

[bizerta]

And, assuming there is a gene that causes homosexuality, it doesn't mean that the trait will neccesarily die out. For example, Tay-Sachs disease is genetic, and people who have Tay-Sachs have no chance at all of reproducing (They usually die by age 3), but it still exists. Some possiblities:

This reflects my original question. I have never heard of Tay-Sachs. I assume that Tay-Sachs only occurs in very rare cases because it is not a trait that is passed down from one's parent(s). Judging from the responses so far, I assume that homosexuality occurs in 2%-3% of the population. Yes, I realise that an occasion homosexual does reproduce, but the instances are not that common. Why, then, is homosexuality so prevalent?

[Broomstick]

Originally posted by bizerta
Being a hetrosexual, I know of few homosexuals. But those that I do know, and those famous homosexuals (Rock Hudson, Ellen Degeneres) have no children.

While nature occasionally causes deviation from our parents, it stands to reason that the children of hetrosexuals tend to be hetrosexuals. So, what causes the homosexual gene to be created as frequently as it does?

Are any other species known to have homosexual traits?

Last question first: Yes, other species do have homosexual individuals. There have been documented cases in seagulls and other birds, rodents, and so forth. Bonobos will apparently have sex with anything of their own species and dolphins apparently aren't even that choosey.

Moving backward through your OP - I seriously doubt homosexuality is caused by just one gene. I think there's an interaction between genes and environment here. Which is not to say you can "cure" or "convert" a homosexual to heterosexuality. Early (and we may be talking pre-natal) environmental effects can have permanent results.

As far as frequency goes - it's like asking why are there so many left-handed people? There are and have been many societies where lefthandedness is a serious social handicap. Such societies have a much smaller rate of lefties than ours does, probably because any lefty that can possibly live as a righty does so. The visibility of gays and dykes is increasing in our culture because there is an increased tolerance, but I seriously doubt there has been any real increase.

Although gays and dykes are less like to have biological children, some do. There children are no more likely to be gay than than the children of heteros. In other words, most children of gays and dykes are heteros just like their straight grandparents.

From an evolution standpoint, a low rate of homosexuality may, in some cases, actually be a good thing in human society. Since gays seldom have bio children of their own, it's not uncommon to find them taking on a secondary parental role towards their neices and nephews. So a het child with a "funny uncle" or "strange aunty" may have acess to a few more resources than a het child with solely het relatives.

As far as reproduction goes - although the preferred sexual activities of gays and dykes does not lead to children, that doesn't mean they can't have bio-kids. There are lots of cases of gays and dykes trying to live straight, getted married in the traditional het manner, and then "coming out" after kids have been produced. In many societies everyone is compelled to marry and most homosexuals can forces themselves to go through the motions if they really really have to (like Rock Hudson did, with a sham marriage or two. Elton John also was in a traditional marriage at one time). There is also, as has been mentioned, a spectrum of het-to-homo. Some folks are at one extreme or the other, but most fall somewhere in between so while most of their sexuality is in one camp or the other under the right circumstances they can display the behavior of the other side.

Right now, in the United States, someone like Ellen Degeneres doesn't have to marry the opposite sex. I'm sure there's still lots of prejudice against the openly gay or dyke individual, but it is possible to live as such. In a different society, Ellen might have been compelled to marry a man and bear his children whatever her personal feelings might have been. The men didn't have it much better. A man might have the option of remaining single, but lots of societies viewed gay activities as felonies (sometimes even warranting death). Royalty might be compelled to father an heir or two, even if the prince found dukes preferable to duchesses. The result was a lot of homosexuals living as heterosexuals and either not expressing their true urges or doing so in secret.

[Lamia]

Originally posted by bizerta

This reflects my original question. I have never heard of Tay-Sachs. I assume that Tay-Sachs only occurs in very rare cases because it is not a trait that is passed down from one's parent(s). Judging from the responses so far, I assume that homosexuality occurs in 2%-3% of the population. Yes, I realise that an occasion homosexual does reproduce, but the instances are not that common. Why, then, is homosexuality so prevalent?

bizerta, this board is about fighting ignorance, but it's not a substitute for a formal education. I never had any science beyond Intro Bio my first year in college, and even I have heard of Tay-Sachs and am familiar with the concept of recessive genes. Even if someone here did have the answer to your question (and letme assure you that no one does, because science has yet to discover it), how could you expect to understand it without a stronger background in biology?

I'm sorry if I seem a bit testy, but I have seen this same question come up again and again. It always seems to be posed by people who couldn't draw a Punnett Square if their lives depended on it. I think if people are that obsessed with the origins of homosexuality they could at least put a little effort into learning about genetics.

[El Zagna]

Originally posted by bizerta
Being a hetrosexual, I know of few homosexuals.

Actually, , bizerta, you probably know more homosexuals than you realize. It's not like they wear a badge or anything.


Originally posted by bizerta
[quote]Yes, I realise that an occasion homosexual does reproduce, but the instances are not that common. Why, then, is homosexuality so prevalent?

Well, again, I think your perception of the homosexual world is a little off. As has been pointed out earlier, there really is a range of hetro/homosexuality. That, plus the enormous social pressures to be "normal" results in many gay men and women marrying and having kids.

[mojo filter]

[rant] Cripes! I am so tired of the homosexual community trying to convince the world that they are afflicted with some type of mutant gene. A mutant gene that compels them to live their lives in such a deviant manner. This is entirely BS. And even if it were true, how come noone is demanding a cure? I don't think someone should be allowed to bitch and gripe about their so called affliction without making an effort to rid themselves of the affliction. You want to live like this? Go ahead, you have the right. (Although, anal sex is still illegal in some states.) But, if you want some type of special treatment from me or the community at large, forget it! I save my sympathy for those that truly deserve it.

If you think I am saying "Stop being homosexual", you are wrong. I will defend your right to choose your own course in life, to the death even. I want you to have these choices available because I have choices of my own that I want to protect. (I want the choice to decide if I want to use or abuse drugs, or not. Or to wear my seatbelt. Or to wear a helmet.) But, to elevate your lifestyle choice to a level higher than mine by saying that it is somehow genetic and therefore protected, doesn't sem fair.[/rant}

[handy]

What about moss? It's an animal & has 13 sexes. Lucky.

[El Zagna]

It is a lifestyle choice!

Oh, goody. And it's off to GD we go.

Here is a question I always like to ask of those who claim that gayness is a lifestyle choice:

I came into this world as a little boy. Some of my earliest memories have to do with with the crushes I had on the girls in my kindergarten class. Every time I went to the movies I would end up in love with the leading lady by the time the credits rolled.

As I grew older I found myself drawn to girls and women in a different way. I loved the way the looked, the way they smelled, the way they sounded, and especially the way they felt.

Well, big deal. I'm a guy. That's the way it's supposed to work.

But what if I'd been born as a little girl? Would I have been able to choose to feel differently towards girls and women? Would I have been able to make myself be attracted to men? For me the answer is an unqualified "NO". Had I been born as a little girl, I would today be a lesbian, no doubt.

But maybe, just maybe, that's not the case for you. So the question I have for you is this: Could you have chosen to be attracted to either men or women? If you could not make that choice, why do you think that gays can? If you could make that choice, ... well I'll let you ponder the implications of that in your own way.

[astro]

Originally posted by handy

What about moss? It's an animal & has 13 sexes. Lucky.

Polysexual bryophytes? Not really.

Moss(es) may have variations on male/female reproduction but this does not count as "13 sexes". And mosses are not
animals even though they have motile sperm.

http://www.sbs.auckland.ac.nz/biology_web_pages/nzplants/moss_sexual_reproduction.htm

http://www.sbs.auckland.ac.nz/biology_web_pages/nzplants/moss_lifecycle.htm

"Moss Sexual Reproduction
~ a complete lifecycle ~
Unlike All Other Land Plants.

Brief description of general moss lifecycle
The "leafy" green moss plant is the gamete-producing plant (gametophyte), which bear male organs (antherdia) and female organs (archegonia) in which gametes are produced by mitosis. The flagellated male gametes (sperm) are released from the antheridia and swim through a film of moisture, such as rain or heavy dew. Responding to chemical attractants, they swim to archegonia, where they fertilise the eggs, producing a zygote. Each zygote then divides by mitosis, producing a diploid spore-producing plant (sporophyte). The sporophyte consists of a capsule, which is usually promptly raised on a stalk (seta). Meiosis occurs within special cells (sporocytes) inside the capsule, resulting in the formation of haploid (n) spores. The spores are released and then germinate, and develop into a mature, leafy, gamete-producing plant (gametophyte).
etc. etc."

[JillGat]

A couple Straight Dope columns on this topic:

Are aphids born pregnant? (http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a3_223.html)

Can turkeys reproduce without benefit of sex? (http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a3_223.html)

Chronos, I am very familiar with the New Mexico whiptail lizard that reproduces via parthenogenesis, but I never heard of this lesbian lizard action of which you speak...

[mojo filter]

Well, big deal. I'm a guy. That's the way it's supposed to work

You are right, this is how it is supposed to work. Thanks for the backup.

But what if I'd been born as a little girl? Would I have been able to choose to feel differently towards girls and women? Would I have been able to make myself be attracted to men? For me the answer is an unqualified "NO". Had I been born as a little girl, I would today be a lesbian, no doubt.

But maybe, just maybe, that's not the case for you. So the question I have for you is this: Could you have chosen to be attracted to either men or women? If you could not make that choice, why do you think that gays can? If you could make that choice, ... well I'll let you ponder the implications of that in your own way.

This is a flimsy argument on several levels, and actually does your cause a disservice.

Your outlook on life is from a man's point of view, you do not know that if you were born a female that you wouldn't find men attractive.

[AWB]

Originally posted by Synergist
Also, your assumption that homosexuals don't have children is simply not correct. Melissa Etheridge, for example, is a lesbian and a mother.

Not biologically. Her former partner, Julie Cypher, is the biological mother, David Crosby is the biological father. I don't know if ME officially adopted them or not; I think possibly she did.

[AWB]

The last I had read about the biological reasons behind homosexuality compared it to handedness. Some people are completely right-handed, some completely left-handed, with some somewhere in between.

Both sexuality and handedness may or may not be genetically predetermined, but just develop as either the brain is grown in utero or as the child is nurtured.

And even a 100% homosexual may not realize his/her sexuality before they procreate. So if there is a gene that predisposes to homosexuality, it could easily be passed on.

[Broomstick]

Originally posted by mojo filter
[rant] Cripes! I am so tired of the homosexual community trying to convince the world that they are afflicted with some type of mutant gene. A mutant gene that compels them to live their lives in such a deviant manner. This is entirely BS. And even if it were true, how come noone is demanding a cure? I don't think someone should be allowed to bitch and gripe about their so called affliction without making an effort to rid themselves of the affliction.

scratching head... I suppose you could mean deviant in a statistical sense (as in, not typical, not the common situation) but somehow I doubt that was your intended meaning.

Imagine the paragraph running I am so tired of the lefthanded community traying to convince the world they are afflicted with some type of mutant gene. A mutant gene that compels them to manipulate objects in such a deviant manner... And even if it were true, how come no one is demanding a cure for lefthandedness?

I've known a lot of homosexuals and almost none of them view their sexuality as an "affliction" - it's the intolerance of those around them that they view as the "affliction". They don't want to be "cured" of their homosexuality, they want to be left alone to live in peace.

You want to live like this? Go ahead, you have the right. (Although, anal sex is still illegal in some states.

Ya know, even a hetero like myself knows that there is more to homosexuality than just anal sex. A man can be gay without ever partcipating in anal sex. A woman can be a lesiban without ever muff-diving. To distill sexuality down to just one act is... I don't know, it just sounds ignorant to me. Like saying hetero sex is strictly missionary-man-on-top. It's such a limited viewpoint.

[/b]But, to elevate your lifestyle choice to a level higher than mine by saying that it is somehow genetic and therefore protected, doesn't sem fair.[/rant} [/B]

Well, we don't know why some folks are homosexual. We really don't. Lots of theories, but no hard proof. What if it IS genetic, at least in part?

[Chronos]

[Moderator watch ON]
Can we please cut the discussion of "it's a lifestyle choice"? No, wait, let me rephrase that: I am here and now cutting off the discussion of "it's a lifestyle choice". Any further posts in this thread along that line will be deleted. This is not to be construed as as censorship; if you have strong views on the subject (heck even if you have ambivalent or weak views) and would like to share those views with the rest of this community, you are welcome to do so in Great Debates.
[Moderator watch OFF]

As to the whiptail lizards, Jill, I read the story once in an old Scientific American. The downside to having once had access to the full archives of the magazine, is that now, when I remember such a story, I have a hard time narrowing down what decade it was... I think that this was sometime in the '70s.

[El Zagna]

Chronos -

At your request I have taken the "lifestyle choice" issue to Great Debates. Mojo, please visit me there.