:rolleyes: Fine, there is no biological advantage in favour of a predisposition to having sex with creatures with which it is possible to breed - hence no corresponding biological disadvantage to the contrary case. Gotcha.
Because if enough people choose not to have them, it becomes more and more difficult, and eventually impossible, for a society to transmit its culture to future generations. This is already a serious danger in Europe.
It’s a serious danger now? Really?
The other thing to keep in mind is that homosexuality is just one type of sexual behavior that seems abnormal. Not that I’m equating homosexuality with deviancy, but there are plenty of humans attracted to pre-pubescent children (of either sex), humans who get off on S/M or B/D practices, etc. Do we know what causes any of those predispositions? If we were to find that pedophilia was completely biological in origin, would society feel better about it?
Not to mention that there are plenty of societies where homosexual acts are* common, even with straight people. We’re very far from cracking this nut, and I suspect a full understanding of this very complex behavior is not going to occur any time soon.
*or “were”, in the case of societies that no longer exist (like Ancient Greece)
Yes, it is. Are you really saying you have been totally unaware of the demographic death spiral Europe has been locked into for some time now? You haven’t heard anything about the “birth dearth” or the “grayby boom”? You haven’t heard about how concerned political and business leaders are about the political and economic troubles it’s going to cause? Japan is running into demographic troubles because of the drastic drop in its fertililty rates as well. You’d have to have been living in a cave on Mars for the last twenty years not to be aware of this.
I have very little doubt at all that this is correct. My genes did not say that I would be 5’7". My genes said that I would be somewhere between 5’3" and 5’10". I had no chance at all to be Shaq, and none at all to be Tattoo. My environment narrowed that number down to my final height. What I ate. What illnesses I had. The exercises and stresses that my body endured as it grew. My hormone levels.
Homosexuality is likely the same. There is a spectrum. Your genes put you somewhere on that spectrum between straight and gay and something about environment made the final call on whether you were over the threshhold for gay or not (or somewhere in between).
I would have little idea what those environmental cues are. I’m not talking about parents making you watch The Birdcage at an early age or something silly. More like hormone levels in the womb, but potentially things that you are exposed to at an early age as well. Likely a combination of many factors all making that final call.
It might not be genetic at all-- the biological component could be entirely due to conditions in the womb. That might make it genetic in the sense that the mother’s genes come into play, but not yours (directly). It could be that we’re genetically capable of being straight or gay or anything in between.
That claim seems extremely dubious, given that even the slowest-breeding European culture is cranking out orders of magnitude more children than many ancient cultures that survived for centuries.
As we all know, there’s no way to transmit culture other than having children. This explains why McDonald’s and Coca-Cola are doing so badly when they try to market their products to people with no American blood…
So. Being homosexual means you get turned on by fruit flies?
I KNEW it!
“Orders of magnitude”? The survival rate may be way up, but I thought in some places the actual birth rate was below replacement. Granted, for most of human history the net breeding rate just barely made it above replacement, but lower is still worse.
Yes, some European countries are below that rate. They might have to (oh, the horrors!!) allow more immigration to keep their population afloat. Same for the Japanese.
That would still make it genetic (at least in my book), even if 100% true. It would just be genetic, once removed.
Can you show that increasing rates of homosexuality in Europe are the cause of this demographic collapse?
Interesting little abstract here, don’t have access to the journal yet.
[
So maybe those talking about how homosexuality will lead to the collapse of the reproduction rate are missing ancillary effects of “homosexuality genes” in families?
But I think that is very different from what pops into people’s heads when you use the term. Hence, I think the qualification is necessary.
Correlation != causation, of course, until you can demonstrate that the same genetic conditions that “cause” homosexuality also “cause” larger family sizes.
Regards,
Shodan
I would be very suspicious of any such study done on an industrialized population, since reproduction in such a society is largely a matter of personal choice and not genetic fitness.
Well okay then, if our model is that homosexuality leads to demographic collapse, I think there are some predictions that come out of that model.
- Cultures with very severe attitudes towards homosexuality will exhibit higher birth rates; they will be protected against demographic collapse.
- Cultures with very permissive attitudes towards homosexuality will exhibit lower birth rates; they will be susceptible to demographic collapse.
- These effects must be independent of economic and educational factors.
I think 3 is the key here; I’m pretty sure birth rate decreases as economic success and quality of education increase.
ETA: And you know, it’s also not a given that cultural pressure will be sufficient to repress homosexual behavior, so ideally, you’d be able to show that there was actually (A) a decline in same-sex sexual activity in individuals in response to cultural pressure or (B) that same-sex sexual activity itself was inversely proportional to birth rate.
I’m confused. I think the authors acknowledge this caveat (I didn’t quote part of the abstract that was basically “maybe the families with gay people overcompensated by popping out more kids due to social pressures”), but you don’t find it plausible that gene products that contribute to homosexuality also, in some way, contribute to fertility, desire to have children, or parenting efficacy or something?
I have indeed heard of all these things. I’m not suggesting you’re wrong in saying there’s a drop in the birth rate. I’m suggesting you’re wrong to say it’s a serious danger now. In a few generations, if things stay the same (or get worse) perhaps then it might be a danger. Now we’re in serious danger? We may be heading towards something, but we’re not there yet.
Man, I am so . . . nonplussed.
Why the heck would I care if a fruit fly was homosexual? I don’t even care if the President is a homosexual!
Did I pay for this research?
Tris