Yes, Hastur. Gays and lesbians do have children – but only with the help of technology. Unless you can tell me that most of those who procreate do so through intercourse with a member of the opposite gender. Some do. But pick me a random sampling of 10,000 pregnant women around the world. I’ll bet you anything that the relative percentage that are lesbians is way below even the most conservative estimate of the worldwide intance of homosexuality. Same thing with a random sampling of men who have fathered children by not jerking off into a cup.
People with cancer survive, too – but only with the help of technology. Unless you can tell me that most of those who survive do so through stubbornness and clean living. People with Downs syndrome or any of a host of other genetic dieases also survive, and even procreate. But the numbers in any of these cases are so far below the norm as to be statistically insignificant. I think my analogy, distasteful as it may be, stands.
However, I did not mean to offend you or anybody else, but merely to make a point that I thought was clear when I wrote it (though apparently not). I apologize for giving offense. Maybe this isn’t the best way of saying it, but some of my best friends are gay. I wouldn’t want them to be any different.
Cap’n crude, where do you get this information? Technology is not going to help gays and lesbians have children unless they are infertile. They probably wont have children with each other, but then its been estimated that 30% of the children who are raised in the average setting aren’t raised by the biological father.
Eugenics was about selective breeding. People were subjected to forced sterilization. Thus far I don’t see any danger of something similiar happening with genetic engineering.
**
No, it isn’t a stretch. But then there are all sorts of people out there with all sorts of crazy ideas. I’m not particularly worried about this one. I know Eugenics made it past the Supreme Court in the early part of the 1900’s but how would mandatory genetic manipulation make it past the SC today?
So what are you trying to say? Would you be interested in making legislation that would forbid parents from genetically altering their children’s sexual preferences?
First: What does fertility or who they’re raised with have to do with genetics (otherwise known as the subject of the OP)? My point is, by definition homosexuals are people who engage in sex with members of their own gender, to the exclusion of any such encounters with members of the opposite gender. Thus, the only realistic way for a gay or lesbian person to reproduce with anybody is through a medically-enhanced fertilization. This is the result of technology. While there may be anecdotes of lesbians submitting to intercourse with a man in order to reproduce, and similar stories of gay men with straight women, the overwhelming preponderance of the evidence tells us that such people can not maintain heterosexual behavior long enough to sire/conceive.
Second: I think the tone of both my posts clearly indicates that I’m not quoting any @%$#!ing sources as a citation, but merely using observations of the world in which we live (I assume it’s the same one) to defend my reasoning on a bluntly worded but otherwise well-reasoned post. A post which I’ve apologized for. Twice, actually; once in the post itself, once afterwards. I will not do so a third time.
This is why I stay out of Great Debates most of the time. Somebody winds up feeling like their POV is being attacked, and they lash out. The person on the other end then proceeds to respond in kind. I’ve been on both ends of it, and I’ve been a neutral observer who watched it happen. Thus, whether you want to describe it as a fit of pique, a villain getting what’s coming to him, or merely an attempt to withdraw and let you continue your debate without distraction, I am leaving. Have loads of fun.
Why? Because most heterosexual couples would probably rather have a heterosexual child.
Lemur866 wrote:
I would imagine that many people, even those that do not have a problem with homosexuality, would rather have a heterosexual child. There could be many reasons…not wanting your child to have a minority sexual preference, wanting to avoid having your child be hurt by gay-bashers, etc.**
So, you’re both saying the problem isn’t with homosexuality per se, just the social reaction to it. Therefore, let’s get rid of all the homosexuals and everything will be fine? :rolleyes:
I’m guessing that you don’t know a lot of lesbians. Off the top of my head I can think of a good half dozen kids I was in high school with who had lesbian moms. All of these kids were conceived the old fashioned way, with no help from technology (not even a turkey baster). Some of these lesbian moms had even been married to the fathers of their children. Most were married and had kids before coming out of the closet, although at least one married after coming out – she wanted to have kids and believed it would be best for them if she were married to their father.
Many lesbians want kids and many of them would not consider “submitting to intercourse with a man” too high a price to pay, especially if artificial insemination were not an option. As things are, I suspect that the popularity of artificial insemination has more to do with the legal protection it affords the mother (the donor can’t show up and demand custody) than the supposed inability of lesbians to “maintain heterosexual behavior long enough to conceive”. The latter route may not be particularly pleasureable for the woman, but a pretty high percentage of heterosexual women report that they get no enjoyment out of sex and only do it to keep their boyfriends and husbands happy. It seems to me that desire to conceive would be an even more powerful motivator, no matter how little desire for men the woman might have.
I think you are too much projecting prevailing cultural beliefs into the future.
Let’s start at the beginning. What was the original meaning of sex? Single cells in the primordial ooze used to reproduce exact copies of themselves. Worked out fine, but if something came along the was capable of wiping one out it would wipe them all out. They had no diversity.
Somewhere along the line the reproductive strategty of sex came along. The idea that we could take this organism and separate it into two halves, such halves that could intermingle and spread the genes that were most likely to result in the survival of the organism.
This took place impossibly many years ago.
Now we humans, let’s say the epitome of this survival process, are approaching another level. We recognize that it is our genes that build our basic building blocks.
This hypothetical future you postulate, we have a very specific ability to mess with our own genetics. We can mix and match the genes that are most likely to result in survival. What is the use of evolutionary genetics? It’s outdated. Homosexual, heterosexual, neither matters. They’re both irrelevant. We can build a child out of the genes of any two people (any one if you want to follow cloning that far). A new reproductive strategy has been made.
One much more disturbing to the norms than homosexuality could have ever been.
So future gays/lesbians will exist. The real question is will it matter?
whacks everyone in the thread over the head with a textbook on Mendelian genetics
Even as a Queer person my genes (whether or not a gay gene is therein included) have a fairly high chance of being transferred to the next generation through my straight little brother. Okay?
If they have fewer children, then that means that most of the gay people are coming from straight parents, so you’re quite obviously incorrect.
Also, matt is correct. I am not reproducing (nor am I gay, but that’s beside the larger point), but my sister has (three times), so any genes we have in common have already been passed on.
There is no selection for heterosexuals as long as gays have the ablility to pass on their genes, and do so in any reasonable numbers. Unless we’re talking about something like rabbits, where you need a litter of 10 to ensure that one or two reach adulthood, then the number of children doesn’t really make too much difference, only their ability to survive and reproduce. But, as pldennison points out, so many of these gays seem to be coming from straight parents.
Let’s also note that my very gay mother had two children. Now, there is a 3/4 chance that at least one of us has “the gay gene”, and a 1/4 chance that both of us do. Both of us are very straight. Now, supposedly, we’re both destined to have more children than if we were gay, so here we are passing on the gene.
Now, if we were to say that there is a gay gene, and it’s dominant, then there would be something of an issue, in that everybody with the gene would be gay, and it is true that gays have fewer children. Not none, but fewer. So if everybody with the gene was gay, and anybody they passed it on to would be gay, then there might be a point to the idea of a gay gene just slowly dying out. I find this to be extremely unlikly, though.
Which is linked to the argument that homosexuality can have an evolutionary advantage because it provides extra adults in an extended family that don’t have their own kids, but can help take care of related ones. AFAIK no-one’s proven that, but it seems possible.
I’ve heard this one myself, I forget where, but it sounded pretty convincing to me. The key to the argument is supposed to be that the evolutionary strategy of humans is not “have as many offspring as you can” but rather “have as many offspring as you can guarantee will grow up and have offspring themselves”. That is a paraphrasing, but it still makes sense…from an evolutionary standpoint, if you have children but no grandchildren, you have lost the game.
Sticking to the OP for now, toss out a few observations later.
Probably yes. Best guess, homosexuality is generally inborn, in the sense of preferred behavior. Clearly, though, it cannot be the result of a single genetic variation, like any number of other genetic “defects” that result in an identifiable syndrome, Tay-Sachs, etc.
Most likely it is the result of a convergence of genetic tendencies, not just one single “glitch” in the coding, otherwise Mother Nature and Papa Darwin would have dealt with it. Any attempt to purport some evolutionary advantage to homosexuality is doomed.
Therefore, it is nearly impossible that there is a single “gene” directly responsible for homosexuality.
It is much more likely that you could screen for eye color than sexuality.
I think the opposite, that any attempt to say that homosexuality is a genetic defect is doomed. Because humans are very society focused and homosexuality and bisexuality allow for a more tightly woven society than just straight people. Reproduction is only viable to a certain extent, because humans have to care for their young having everybody reproduce would hurt us more than it would help us. Why else would 10% of the population be infertile?
Uh, eye color in humans is one of the most complex gene combinations identified. Probably not the best example.
Although, having not identified any genes whatsoever for sexual orientation (although I believe that they are part of what determines orientation, although Mom’s hormone cocktail seems a likely contributor as well), who knows, it may be even more complex than eye color.
