I do not believe that a genetic origin for homosexuality exists. It is just too evolutionarily unrewarding. So the scenario won’t work.
If such a gene existed, I think a lot of parents might choose to deep-six embryos or fetuses that possessed it even in a society in which there’s little or no social prejudice against homosexuals. Reason: grandchildren, lack of.
Well, yes, I do find it horribly offensive. Just because something is more-or-less genetically based, doesn’t justify words like “flaw” and “freak.” There are certainly genetic components at work when someone is a genius, or has artistic gifts or sports aptitudes, but we don’t call these people “flawed” or “freaks.” And I really don’t get the phrase “When it goes out of style.”
Well, I’m not sure exactly what kind of cites you want, and I wouldn’t know where to find some good ones online off the top of my head in any case. Let me know what sort of cites you’re looking for and I’ll see what I can find tomorrow, though.
For a start, the Symopsium by Plato might be a good place to look on the prevalence of homosexuality* in ancient Greece. It’s a philosophical debate on the nature of love, written around the 4th century B.C.E. - don’t worry, it’s more readable than it sounds if you find a good translation - and not only do the characters discuss homosexuality as a common practice, some of them actually suggest that the ideal erotic relationship is only possible between two males! (It should be noted here that Plato himself disapproved of homosexuality according to some of his other works - but that wasn’t the orthodox opinion of his society, and in any case Plato certainly doesn’t treat it as something practiced by only “a very minute percentage.”)
BrightNShiny and MusicJunkie offered some cites on animal homosexuality, but if you want I can try and look for some more on that tomorrow too.
*I’m using “homosexuality” in this post as shorthand for the practice of male/male or female/female sex, not for exclusive attraction to members of one’s own sex. Like I said before, to have sexual intercourse exclusively with members of one’s own sex was pretty historically rare.
There is a lot that could be said in response, but a simple answer is that those who are most likely to want to abort their fetus because it will be homosexual are also those most likely to be morally opposed to abortion.
I think that’s a pretty inaccurate statement.
I believe homosexuality is morally wrong but if they ever found a “gay gene” and my unborn baby had it, there is NO WAY I would, for one minute, consider getting an abortion. For one thing, our genes don’t necessarily dictate our behavior. Even so, if I knew w/o a doubt my kid was going to be gay, the thought of aborting it wouldn’t cross my mind. That’s my kid, dammit, and I’ll love him/her, gay, straight, bi, Democrat (please God ANYTHING but that 
) or whatever else.
Most hardcore pro-lifers are hardasses on this because they believe that ALL life should be protected. I really don’t think we’d see long lines at Planned Parenthood filled with pro-lifers who are making an exception when it comes to gay genes.
What I want to know is what will/would the reaction of gays (those who are really rabid about abortion rights be IF a gay gene is found)? Will they support the rights of women who do want to abort for that very reason, or will they flip-flop overnight?
Though we do have a certain je ne sais quoi that the world would be missing without our very existence.
There are a lack of children?
None are available for adoption and no children need homes?
I think what Evil Captor means is the whole “My DNA won’t go forth into the future” thing.
SnoopyFan, my limited experience is that few people think it’s okay to pick and choose your children based on the characteristics they might have genetically.
Was this a movie too? I’ve seen it done onstage. Interesting stuff.
A great number of posts have been made on this subject, and at the very least, there are strong counter-arguments to this point. For example - and I’m not claiming this as my own idea - adults who don’t reproduce can aid adults with children.
One might also suspect that if it was going to “breed itself out” or whatever, it might’ve already happened.
Homosexuality is self-terminating? And here I thought lesbians could have children (see Melissa Etheridge and Julie Cypher). In fact, they can reproduce twice as fast as a straight couple if they so choose. Gay men can reproduce as well, via surrogate mothers.
So are we saying animal societies and cultures produce homosexuality? That seems weird…
I think it’s probable there’s at least a genetic predisposition toward homosexuality. I wouldn’t characterize it as a genetic ‘flaw,’ however. First, because that’s a value judgment, and second because it’s not a flaw in that it does not impair the ability of those with it to survive. So it’s inaccurate in my opinion to call it a flaw, but in general it’s a bigoted thing to say.
Homosexuality is self-terminating? And here I thought lesbians could have children (see Melissa Etheridge and Julie Cypher). In fact, they can reproduce twice as fast as a straight couple if they so choose. Gay men can reproduce as well, via surrogate mothers.
True, but if you take a gay couple and give no outside help, there will be no reproduction. Two gay guys are never gonna create a baby without a surrogate mom, and two lesbians are never going to make a baby without a sperm donor. The only way either couple can have kids is to either get some help from the opposite sex OR adopt. Left to themselves (this is providing that there is a gay gene), if people reproduced long enough (would probably take a long time), the gay gene would eventually die out.
Providing there is a gene to begin with. Which I doubt because as Evil Captor says, evolutionarily (is that a word?) it doesn’t make sense.
Yes, but in human society today, there is more ‘outside help’ than ever, thus I see no reason to expect the gene will die out. And again, animals have no outside help and it hasn’t died out.
Likewise - and perhaps other posters who know more about animals than I will be along to help out - there DO seem to be benefits to homosexuality for the species as a whole. Also, the fact that something doesn’t make sense doesn’t mean it isn’t evolutionary. That’s personifying the process. It doesn’t make any sense (from a logical perspective) that our eyes interpret everything upside down and our brains have to flip them. If evolution ran on ‘sense’ and logic, that wouldn’t happen. But if you understand how we evolved, you can see why it happens.
laigle:
That’s what I was thinking when I wrote the OP and asked about the societal implications.
Assume the technology to uncover homosexuality prenatally emerges within the next 5-7 years, at which time the societal attitudes toward homosexuals remains pretty much where it is now (no such thing as gay marriage, homosexuality existing outside - or on the margins - of the mainstream, etc.).
I don’t think it’s necessarily accurate to envision ONLY overly religious parents overlooking their objections to abortion and terminating their homosexual fetus.
I think you might have plenty of parents who a) may, as SnoopyFan/Evil Captor point out, fear their DNA not progressing into the future, or b) may fancy themselves as tolerant, but fear their child being ostracized, who would decide that having a gay child is just not worth the trouble.
I fear if this technology arrived before societal attitudes progressed to the point of gay acceptance by the mainstream, quite a few gay children would be aborted (again, IMHO, it is unconscionable to abort a fetus simply because he/she is gay).
If gays make up 10% of the population (which seems to be the standard estimate), but by 2050 make up, say, 5-7% of the population, what could be the societal implications of the radical dwindling of the gay population?
Really, mangeorge, this isn’t true. As a conservative, I think I speak for most of my kind in saying that human life is valued higher than human “normalcy.” That is, of course, assuming you believe that some people are genetically predisposed to being homosexual. But that is the situation in this thread.
I, for one, am pro-life in nearly all cases (extremely high danger to the mother being the sole exception), and if I were to find out my child were to become a homosexual, it would be a non-issue as to my desire to have my wife carry the child to term.
-Mucky
While society can be quite intolerant, this might be overstating the case. Not everyone approves of homosexuality, sure, but I don’t know that much of the population would actively terminate a pregnancy for this reason. As far as the mainstream goes, there are any number of TV shows with gay characters (some of them quite popular), and people - slowly, perhaps - are becoming more comfortable with gays, and the more people become comfortable, the few will view it as something that should be eliminated. Also, as far as ‘no gay marriage,’ that’s not true in all nations…
Not an online cite, but a great book:
**Biological Exuberance: Animal Homosexuality and Natural Diversity by Bruce Bagemihl **
Speaking of causal factors, is anyone else here a proponent of the congenital or cross gendered neuroanatomy (CGN) theories? Originally conceived by Karl Heinrich Ulrichs in the 19th century, but (IMO) still the most plausible etiological explanation. A study abstract, outlining multiple CGN etiologies, if you’re interested: Measuring Gender:
As a trait developed in utero, like left/right handedness, I’m not sure it could be detected prenatally.
I’m too drunk to read the rest of this thread to see if it has been posted already, but the fact is that it is NOT genetically unrewarding at all. Remember, that genes are not individuals: not thinking things. They are parasites on larger hosts, reproducing themselves. So if an entire family tree benefits from having an occasional homosexual, hen it WILL survive just fine as a gentically recessive trait. Indeed, biologist E.O. Wilson has suggested precisely this: that homosexuals are common features in societal animals because their prescence make enire kin groups more likely to survive.
OK, an easier answer - people opposed to homosexuality will refuse to accept that there is a genetic marker that means their child will be gay. 'Cause, ya know, homosexuality is a lifestyle choice.
But Sua, you argue, they won’t reject the scientific evidence!
Hey, these guys think the universe was formed in six frigging days.
Alternative: these people think that homosexuality can be cured. In that case, there is no moral conflict - one does not murder someone who has a curable condition. Morally, the proper action is to cure the condition.
Sua
But, oddly enough, the increasing cultural acceptance of homosexuality could lead to its disappearance.
Like some posters have said, in previous ages, it was either condemned, or assumed that even if you have homosexual affairs you will also be married with kids. Therefore the large majority of homosexuals had children.
Whereas that’s not the case today, birth-children wise. They are not expected to have children. Therefore, if it is genetically related, the gene could die out due to increased cultural acceptance.
If there is some truth to the “cousin helper” theory, I would think it has long been overshadowed by our cultural safety net of social services and welfare and such. I don’t see that factor giving the gene a large relative advantage. At any rate, what advantage that remains would be dwarfed by the lack of necessity for children.
(note, my phrase “die out” is relative. Recessive genes can, of course, live on forever)
While I would agree that most pro-life folks aren’t going to abort a gay fetus, with some notable exceptions, like Phelps perhaps, I still think the determination might cause a great deal of harm.
I mean, who wants to be that kid? At least today a homosexual can remain anonymous within their family circle until puberty/ moving out. Maybe your folks don’t talk to you after that, but you can hide it from them, at least into your teens and such. If they knew from the time you were conceived, or shortly thereafter however, everything in your whole life is going to be wrong from the minute you pop out. I’d suspect there’d be a lot more suicides than abortions.
The dominent assumption in our culture today is that everyone is one or the other: either straight or gay. This perception is not one that’s existed throughout history. People do not seem to have seen things this way in the ancient world. Why assume that our current perception is anything but temporary? Right now, this is the way most of us see things, but it’s not the only way to see things. It seems possible that, a few generations from now, the idea that everyone is one or the other, straight or gay, will seem quaint and old fashioned. Perhaps people will come to percieve a continuum from strongly straight to srongly gay, with many possible points in between: no sharp dividing line, and few people being absolutely exclusively anything.