Will homosexuality become less common as it is more widely accepted?

[Ike_Witt]

*Originally posted by Wrath *
**If the homo gene were passed from gay-to-gay, then hetero couples would never have a homo child, yet this has happened throughout history, consistently around 10% in all cultures.
**

Is there any support for this 10% claim? I was under the impression that this number came from the (highly?) flawed Kinsey Report. It seems to me that the actual number is closer to 3%.

[BlackKnight]

*Originally posted by SPOOFE Bo Diddly *
I would think that eventually, you can tell people that you prefer those of the same gender, they’d react much the same way as if you told them you prefer relish on your hamburger.

You mean there’s actually sick people out there who eat hamburgers with relish on them? Sinners!

[The_Asbestos_Mango]

If homosexuality is, in fact, genetic, I think that it will become less common over the next few generations, but I don’t think the “gay genes” will be bred out of existence altogether.

If it is environmental, as in hormonal imbalances caused by maternal stress while in utero, it won’t

If it is caused by a combination of factors, it might.

Then again, it might not.

[Sterra]

Ive heard it was more 2 percent with the 1 other being confused:) 10% would be having a homosexual encounter in their lifetime.

I think that you can relate your sexuality genetically like tallness. There are freakish migets(freakish homosexuals) people with mixed genes and freakish tall people(freakish straight people)

The bottom line is, your a freak.

[waterj2]

*Originally posted by Polycarp *
One additional serious thought: presuming gayness is genetic, it would have occurred about equally often in history. Now more openness in the last 25 years has meant there are more “out” gays – but there have probably been as many in total. And one assumes that most closeted gays in 1430 or 1850 simply did not marry and have children, just as happens today. There were a lot of convenient reasons one could give throughout most of history – uh, I have a vocation to monastic life, that’s it – I haven’t found a woman I want to settle down with, but just you wait! – Artemis has called me to a celibate life as her devotee – and so on. Few if any closeted gays prior to 1975 would turn to straight sex simply because gay sex was verboten.

I doubt these excuses would work for the majority of the population. Back before Social Security, the only way to be provided for in old age was to have kids to work the farm when you no longer could (well, feudalism was before Social Security). So I think for the average poor uneducated peasant who doesn’t really understand why he isn’t attracted to women beyond the fact that he’s going to Hell if he can’t get it up on his wedding night there was ever much of an option about passing his genes on.

Hey, if you do accept that homosexuality is genetically determined, that means all you gay people are descended from those who weren’t clever enough to avoid being pressured into heterosexual sex ;).

[vanilla]

BlackKnight; that is known as “the relish lifestyle”…

[Wrath]

*Originally posted by adam yax *
Is there any support for this 10% claim? I was under the impression that this number came from the (highly?) flawed Kinsey Report. It seems to me that the actual number is closer to 3%.
**

Actually, I think you are right, I was being generous.

But that would further support the contention that if it were purely genetic, it would have dissappeared long ago. Homosexuality serves no biological purpose in a non-hermaphroditic species (I know, redundant), so IMHO something else is at work biologically, like a hormonal release (or non-release) at a specific, critical moment of fetal development. This sort of thing may be unavoidable no matter how much genetic control we seek to gain, and this goes for anyone wishing to have any type of child.

[Polycarp]

Mmmm, Water, you may have a point. But often in earlier times the childless poor just muddled along, slightly outcast by the community but making a subsistence living for themselves. Contemplate your average “witch” – not necessarily a wiccan practitioner, but a little old lady with no living children who used her knowledge of herbs and such to produce the medicines of the times, etc. Most of the time people were content to let her live, somewhere on the outskirts of the village or nearby in the country, unless a demagogue got on a witchcraft kick in the area.

And the men? Well, who do you think was responsible for decorating all those palaces and castles?

[redtail23]

I’m with Freyr on this.

I think that the perceived exclusivity of sexual orientation and behavior is cultural more often than personal.**

I am primarily heterosexual - by that, I mean that I am most often attracted to members of the opposite sex. However, I am also attracted to members of the same sex and have engaged in long-term homosexual relationships. I’ve been hassled by hets & gays - both groups insisting that I’m wrong and/or lying to myself in one way or another. I know that this experience is fairly common among bis; it is fortunately becoming less so. As that attitude has waned and bisexuality has become more accepted among gays, and as bi- & homo-sexuality has become more accepted among straights, I’ve seen many more people self-identify as bisexual.

There is ample evidence that, in many cultures that accept homosexuality as normal, it is common for an individual to engage in both types of relationships. In such cultures, individuals usually do not identify themselves as exclusively “straight” or “gay”. In cultures that ostracize homosexuality, it is still common for an individual to engage in both types of relationships. In our culture, it is common for such an individual to identify zirself as “straight” until zie realizes that zie is “gay” (or something along those lines).

I suspect that, as homosexuality becomes more acceptable in our culture, what you will see is more people openly having both straight and gay relationships (although not necessarily at the same time, unfortunately ;)). IOW, there will be no decrease in the “gayness” of the genepool, because many people who now consider themselves “straight” will identify as “queer” and still have kids, and many people who now identify as “queer” will have kids (as quite a few of them already do).
**Please note, I’m not saying that an individual who perceives zirself to be 100% gay or straight is wrong. I’m saying that, as a whole population, a smaller percentage would perceive themselves to be 100% one or the other.