Heh, yeah, just keep telling yourself that comfortable little lie. Plenty of people who are not vehemently anti-abortion would be willing to prevent a “flawed” child from being born.
The gene for sickle cell anaemia survives, because it has other effects that provide an overall benefit to the gene pool (resistance to malaria). Homosexuality could be genetically based and survive if other effects of the gene were beneficial.
Sickle-cell is 100% genetic and kills. If one is heterozygous for the trait, one is resistant to malaria. You are remarkably ignorant of basic genetics.
If the gene is harmful, then there is selective pressure against recessive genes also. When heterozygous, no harm is done. When homozygous, the gene is harmful. Hence if there are no other beneficial effects of the gene, selective pressure will work against it even if it is recessive. The process is just a whole lot slower.
Dogface - beat ya!
I just don’t know. Say you’re a young couple and your first child is due in 6-7 months, and you know that it will be gay. You know that, if it’s a son, he’ll be bringing his boyfriend home to dinner. And you know what they’ll be doing in private. And if a girl, she’ll be bringing her girlfriend. Couple that with all we see on TV (Gay Pride Parade, right wing rantings, etc) and with what we hear “people say”. Remember, there is no “cure”.
Will dad still run out and buy his new son a football helmet? Will mom still glue a bow to her newborn daughters bald head?
Put yourself in the mind of a parent who knows for sure, and who also has a couple months to think about the fact that they can easily. and privately, end it.
I’m particularly fascinated by this question when it gets paired with economics. If, as GoHeels postulates, that technology comes into play within our current societal framework, the only people who are going to have access to it are the moderately wealthy on up. Medical procedures that aren’t critical are out of reach of most of the population of the US currently.
So, what would happen when the number of homosexuals born into wealthy families dwindles remarkably? While the number of less-well-off homosexuals remains the same?
The societal effects extend far beyond homosexuality. What’s going to happen when rich people can afford to not only ensure that their children don’t have any genetic diseases or significant predispositions for major illness, but can “design” their offspring?
Homosexuality (whether genetic, environmental, or both) will probably diminish. What about unattractiveness? What about talents, skills, and gifts? What about basic emotional tendencies and preferences?
The gene pool is soon going to be completely chlorinated, sanitized, and made utterly interesting.
Good point. Just as a hypothetical, presume a gene that with “proper” reinforcement induces a tendency towards male-bonding (or female-bonding), and with “improper” reinforcement induces same-sex orientation (“proper” and “improper” being from a pro-heterosexual cultural perspective). Obviously, hunters that hunt as a group tend to be more successful than Grot the Loner, bringing down more Irish elk, mammoths, etc. Women who share the harvesting of fruits and nuts and the care of children with other women tend to garner more produce and at the same time lose fewer children to accidents. Net result: a social/cultural matrix is selected for – and homosexuality is selected for at the same time.
Interestingly, this thread is also reflecting the idea that homosexuality is either genetic or not genetic, one or the other with nothing in between. It doesn’t have to be 100% genetic or 100% environmental/choice/whatever, and logically, I don’t think it could be.
The choice (to be gay) idea is hard for me to buy into. I’ve known three people since childhood who turned out to be gay, two male and one female. All three were “different” since they were very young, certainly pre-adolescent. One of the men didn’t come out until recently, but always was attracted to men.
My friend, a lesbian, said she much preferred that her son not be gay. I’ll ask her this question. She, like me, is pro choice but hates abortion.
Not my previous post! Actually, most researchers are now assuming multiple causal factors, in this order of viability: prenatal wash (congenital), genetic, environmental. Genetics alone has been ruled out - google the twin studies. One good thing about that: The OP can’t happen.
Alfred Kinsey’s research suggested the sexual continuum in 1948. He developed the 7 point continuum scale for sexuality. Subsequently, more refined scales have been developed as well:
Exactly. With the smaller families in First World countries now, parents might think twice if they KNEW their kid was gonna be the end of the line.
It’s a moot point, I think, since I don’t think there’s a genetic basis. However, if it turns out there’s a biochemical basis and that gayness can be ‘cured’ in the future, especially if it can be detected and altered in childhood, well, that might be a corker for gayness.
Sorry, annaplurabelle, didn’t mean everyone was doing that. I was saying I don’t think genetics alone can be the answer either, and I’d go as far as to say I’m happy the OP can’t happen either. What’s prenatal wash, btw? I googled that and came up empty.
Even if there were a gay gene discovered, or more specifically something detectable that said “this child will be gay”, and even if every child with that gene were instantly killed, there is still the factor of carriers, unless it is a dominant gene (which I think it rather unlikely). This means that one would further have to come up with a test to find for the recessive trait, not just the homogenous (I think that’s the right word) recessive gene, if one hoped to eliminate homosexuality.
And even then ya gotta worry about us befuddling bisexuals:D
I would be signigicantly more concerned if I were to discover that my unborn child was genetically pre-disposed not towards homosexuality but towards sexual (or any other) bigotry.
From personal experience it’s clear that there must be some genetic component. I just know too many people who have grown up in a very homophobic world and are gay against their own will - and they’re not doing it to rebel, or just because they fell in love with a particular person. So there must be some predetermination, probably spread over a number of genes, and it is possible that this could be detected prenatally, eventually.
Of course, genes will never be the whole story when it comes to who you’re attracted to and who you fall in love with. I’m afraid that with human relationships there is never one simple easy answer. For comparison, a person could be genetically predisposed to being a great swimmer (strong upper body, good lung capacity, etc), but if they grow up in the desert, then they will never be a great swimmer. Most likely, it’s a genetic predisposition which has to be acted on by the environment.
This is an interesting thought experiment. What if parents know they’re having a gay kid and he surprises them by bringing home a girlfriend? What if parents are extra disappointed when their safe, certified-straight child turns out to be gay after all? What if it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy - the parents know their daughter is going to be gay, and therefore buy her Action Man instead of Barbies, send her to the local Gay Kids playgroup, etc, etc. If she does end up gay, is it because she really was genetically predisposed to, or because of her conditioning?
I think that is all it will ever be though, a thought experiment. There would be enough uncertainty for nearly all parents to continue with the pregnancy. Even with the severe disorders that can be detected in vutro today, such as Downs Syndrome, many parents still opt to continue with the pregnancy. That’s not being wiped out just because it’s possible to do so, and that will not happen with sexuality either.
It would explain the lack of gay people in Star Trek though!
Also it would make a great movie - Gayttaca. 
It’s closer than you think. Check out the second article.
Dr. Norbert Reynolds discovers gene responsible for homosexuality
So now all the faggot-ass genes are staying solidly in the closet. No wonder scientists can’t find 'em.
So you don’t think Worf and the captain…
Nah, of course not.