Wouldn't a gay gene have been selected against?

We’re theorizing that there’s a “gay gene” out there that compells you to be gay. Obviously, a gay gene is an inhibition to reproduction, and, given the whole evolution thing, wouldn’t gays have been weeded out early on?

Please search the archives.

If I remember correctly, homosexuality increases in mice colonies when overpopulation occurs. If that applies to other species, then perhaps it isn’t a “gay gene” as much as a “population control” gene, which gives higher percentages that a fetus will be homosexual, and which kicks in during overcrowded conditions (or other stimuli associated with same).

:confused:

Why in the hell would God create a gene for something he is so obviously against? That doesn’t make much sense.

The whole idea of sexual attraction being tied to genes is, to me, pretty strange. Is there a “not sexually attracted to either” gene? A “Into Blondes” gene? A “Fat Woman” gene?

It seems an oversimplification to believe that homosexuality is caused by genetics.

Please search the archives.

Sorry. My bad.

Possible answers:

  1. By this question do you mean to suggest that God is * for * such things as cystic fibrosis, Tay-Sachs disease, Down syndrome, and hundreds of other diseases and conditions caused by genes?

  2. Perhaps God is not as “obviously” against homosexuality as you think?

  3. Perhaps there is no God?

By that logic, Tay-Sachs should have been selected against as well, but it hasn’t been.

A lot of things must not make sense to you.

My primitive understanding of the listed genetic disorders are that they are mutations of functioning genes, altering them in a negative way.

Is this what happens with the supposed “gay gene” or is there a sexuality gene that is turned on or off during fetal development making someone straight or gay???

This would affect the logic of this debate in considerable ways. Mutations cannot be selected again, as they are mistakes. Healthy genes can be selected against, as they are less likely to be passed on to future generations.

<<Mutations cannot be selected again, as they are mistakes. >>

Uhhhmm…no.

Mutations are simply changes. They aren’t “mistakes” because there is no right or wrong answer.

Whether it is morally right or wrong to have specific sexual desires is a totally different question from whether these desires are genetic or environmental. Leaving aside the moral question, it’s not difficult for me to imagine a gene which makes a person more gregarious, or more shy; more tolerant of physical affection, or less so; and given that almost all people customarily touch each other in regular social contact, it’s not hard to stretch that idea of contact from shaking hands to hugging to brushing hair or backrubs (shades of other primate grooming!) to sexual play.

The human sex drive of both sexes FAR exceeds the actual reproductive usage. The last numbers I saw were that married couples had sex 100 or so times a year; even if you granted that someone married at 18, the woman went through menopause at 48, and they had ten children (an outrageously high number) then that means they had sex 3000 times during her fertile life, and 2990 of those times, they didn’t conceive. There’s no biological reason that we shouldn’t spend our 99.7% non-reproductive sex on anyone we choose, with absolutely no consequences to our reproductive rate.

I think you’ll find when you talk to gay people that many of them do have biological children of their own, either through marriage, experimentation with opposite-sex partners, or deliberate choice for parenting a child. More than half of the gay people I know have had sex at least once with a person of the opposite sex; it’s simply where they choose to spend their 99.7% of their sex drive that makes them different.

Corr, who’s well aware she comes from a long line of ancestors ALL of whom lived to reproduce

Here’s an off-the-wall answer.

If there’s a God, maybe he tests people because he wants to. It’s too mysterious to know why he wants to. He’s God. You can’t see his mind, or predict Him. He just tests people. He gives them diseases. He gives them mental challenges. He makes some people gay.

And, because we’re all different as a result, we’re all tested. Us so-called normal people are tested on how we’ll react to people with differences.

Do I believe this? Not really.

But, hey, I do believe you can’t know everything about this life. So, maybe you should just be tolerant of people with differences just in case.

Several thoughts:

First, don’t attribute to God what some of his followers think, any more than Al Gore is for complete socialization of everything or George Bush is for making us all by force into fundamentalist Baptists (he’s not one himself, I was informed here a while ago).

Second, any recessive gene may carry a contrasurvival trait (and I assume that lack of desire to commit heterosexual intercourse could legitimately be considered contrasurvival without any implied condemnation of gay people), and still be selected for, if the heterozygous condition has a value that benefits the individual or the race. And will maintain a certain proportion in the species if the heterozygous condition is neutral.

Finally, the assertion has been made that having individuals without husband/wife and children to support and with an attraction to, and therefore special interest in, their companions-on-the-hunt or their co-hearth-tenders, tended to enhance the chances for survival of tribes containing those individuals, since they could “carry the load” where the other person was incapacitated. This would have a positive selection value. Obviously a gay person would fall into the description above.

I don’t think it is likely that there is any sexuality gene. For the species to prosper, humans had to have sex, like every other species. So attraction was there all for the purpose of reproduction. the only reason we are attracted to good looking people is because that is a signal of good genes and thus good offspring.

So, i don’t think being gay or straight has anything to do with genes. I think alot of it has to do with upbringing and environment. I’ve always speculated that overpopulation might have something to do with it, too.

Ah, but what you think, ssj_man (or what I or Sister Coyote or even Ed Zotti thinks) does not matter. The question is what mechanism, if any, causes gayness: gene, gene complex, congenital hormone flooding, early-life environment, temptation by the Devil, punishment by God for turning away from Him, molestation, choice of the individual, a combination of the above… (Clearly several of these can be ruled out through research, but my point is that what we think does not count, just what we conclude by the scientific method.)

:confused: How’d I get dragged into this? :wink:

Since I’m here, however, I guess I have to repeat what Polycarp said in the last thread on this subject I was involved in:

Who cares?

And, really, why should Esprix or I or Polycarp or you, ssk or anyone care why we are the way we are? After all, we’re all (theoretically) adults now, and we are who we are.

The trick now isn’t why we are the way we are. It’s how do we live with the people we’ve discovered ourselves to be.

Well, I for one would disagree with that.

It’s not that I have a horse in this race but it would be an interesting thing to know.

But I think that about most genetic issues.

Why do human females have enlarged breasts?

Why is there homosexuality?

What’s the deal with male-pattern baldness? (I want to know that one really bad. It’s personal.)

All those answers would fascinate me.

So at least from a sort of distant, disinterested angle, someone cares.

Jonathon,

To be fair, I thought I was in the Christian God/Gays thread (whatever it’s title is).

It’s not that I don’t care about the genetic basis of a bunch of things (for example, just as you’d like to know what’s up with MPB, I’d like to know why menstruation has to be so f-ing painful). But, ultimately, I don’t think the root causes of sexuality should matter unless you’re interested in removing “deviation” (from the norm - whatever that is) from the genetic pool.

And I think that would be a mistake - and a tragedy.

and, it appears that I need to apologize for misspelling your name.

Sigh.

Well, gee. Apology accepted. I’ve seen more misspellings of ‘Jonathan’ on this board than you could shake a stick with a dead cat on it at.

I realize that there’s potential for exploitation (and persecution) in deriving the root cause(s) (if any) of homosexuality. But I still think it’d be kind of cool to know.

If only to shove it down the throat of people who argue that homosexuals are making a ‘lifestyle choice’ and should be punished for it. God, that ticks me off.