Is homosexuality genetic?

[HansMustermann]

Yeah, that's the thing that strikes me as funny about the "weakness" perspective. Seems to portray homosexuality as this seductive tempting thing that everyone wants, but good moral people are strong enough to resist.

Well, not even just tempting, but really more tempting than anything else. In ye olde days, the devil would tempt one with eternal youth, or riches beyond belief, or supernatural powers, or stuff like that. The ones who sold their soul at the Scholomance for example -- since I'm reminded of that after debating Dracula in another thread -- would supposedly be instructed in incredible magics, including summoning a whole thunderstorm and summoning a dragon as an epic mount.

Stuff like that, it's easy to see why someone would be tempted out of any faith or principles to get that. I mean, heck, if I get to ride a dragon, I know _I_ would sign up in a jiffy.

But nowadays it seems like even that's no longer necessary, and _the_ strongest temptation in the devil's arsenal is to just point someone at a hung gay stud. They might resist the temptation of youth, fame, glory, money, power or lots of pussy, but tempting them with some cock will break them quicker than waterboarding

Basically, you'd think even if someone's faith was wobbly, there'd be other stuff they'd be easier to tempt with.

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

<snip>

The better argument to make is that homosexuality is at worst neutral on that continuum. It has no detrimental effects (that we know of at least) for the individual, and in the relatively low proportions it currently exists it appears to have no detrimental effects for groups or the species as a whole. We don't need to try to cure it simply because there doesn't seem to be any reason to want to do so.

I don't think that's entirely correct. Male homosexuality appears to have higher health risks associated with it, whereas female homosexuality (at least as far as HIV is concerned) is protective when compared with heterosexual sex.

 

[Roboramma]

I don't quite get this. Which other groups are you talking about? If the idea of homosexuality thriving through group selection happened to be true, then it could be that the groups where homosexuality disappeared lost their ability to function and went extinct.

Oh, basically I was trying to say that if homosexuality was selected against on an individual level, then while some groups with less homosexuality (or none) might die out, there would still be a pressure within the remaining groups toward less homosexuality.

Say we've got groups 1-6.

1: 10% homosexual
2: 8 %
3: 6 %
4: 4 %
5: 2%
6: 0%

So, after groups 5 and 6 die off, selection is still happening in groups 1-4, and the prevelence of homosexuality in those groups goes down. Of course, they also move into the territory occupied previously by 5 and 6.
Over time you end up with something like:

1: 5% homosexual
2: 3 %
3: 1 %
4: 0 %
1B: 5%
3B: 1%

And the prevalence went down, because while the groups with more homosexuality did better, there's nothing to increase the prevalence of homosexuality within the group.

Of course, all this is only meaningful if homosexuality is actually selected against on an individual level, which, as I said earlier, I don't think we have any reason to believe.

Anyway, I think you already agreed with all that and I'm needlessly repeating myself.

 

[HansMustermann]

Yes, or so seems to be the reasoning of some right wingers that insist on calling it a lifestyle choice.
If homosexuality was a choice, then gays could equally choose not to be gay, and hence, they choose whatever comes their way... Or so I believe is the idea.

Examples here or here.

If anyone knows how you can simply choose to rewire your brain, and has good scientific evidence for that, I'd even pay good money for that. Mind you, not to become gay, but there are other uses and benefits that come to mind

 

[Bill Thompson]

I have heard people say that homosexuality is genetic.

However, based on evolution, wouldn't homosexuality as a trait have been lost generations ago, due to the low reproductive rate of homosexuals?

Is it generally accepted that homosexuality is a genetic trait?

If so, how is this trait passed on to the next generation at a rate that would allow the trait to continue?

So is Color Blindness. Evolution has not removed that as well.

Of course it is genetic. This is why the LDS is so passionate about getting kids through adoption. Since it seems homosexuality is genetic, fewer Mormon men feel the need to procreate.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

There is no right or wrong with something that is entirely biological. ....

This is debatable. How about genetically influenced pedophilia? I think you need the qualifier, "if there is no victim". Then your declaration would be valid.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

....
That being said, I don't believe group selection "doesn't work" either. In my opinion, it is possible that social functions, such as smiling or homosexual tendencies, enhance the ability of a group of humans to function and promote survival. It might be that in some point in history, a group of early primates that didn't engage in homosexual activity went extinct because their lacking social abilities made the group weaker. Again, note that I'm not saying that this is what happened; just that it's feasible. And I agree that group selection alone can't explain homosexuality - but that doesn't mean both forms of selection can't co-exist.

Natural selection is better described as 'natural selection pressures'. Not every trait is perfectly reproduced or weeded out based on absolute survivability factor. That is a common mistake people make who haven't kept up to date with the progress we've made understanding the processes of evolution.

Evolution is acting on thousands of genes simultaneously. Very few traits are selected or not selected without any other part of the genome being involved. It just isn't that clean of a process.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Genetic? No, it's infectious, and homophobia seems like a big risk factor. It's the only way to explain how all those homophobic republicans get caught in homosexual sex scandals!

Wise words of caution to those rabid anti-gay 'potential' gay guys.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I don't think that's entirely correct. Male homosexuality appears to have higher health risks associated with it, whereas female homosexuality (at least as far as HIV is concerned) is protective when compared with heterosexual sex.

To be clear, it is anal intercourse that is riskier, not homosexual sex per se. That and excessive multiple partners played a role in the spread of HIV in gay men in the US in the 70s in particular.

Multiple partners and anal intercourse are high risk whether hetero or homosexual in nature.

 

[Mirrorglass]

Oh, basically I was trying to say that if homosexuality was selected against on an individual level, then while some groups with less homosexuality (or none) might die out, there would still be a pressure within the remaining groups toward less homosexuality.

Say we've got groups 1-6.

1: 10% homosexual
2: 8 %
3: 6 %
4: 4 %
5: 2%
6: 0%

So, after groups 5 and 6 die off, selection is still happening in groups 1-4, and the prevelence of homosexuality in those groups goes down. Of course, they also move into the territory occupied previously by 5 and 6.
Over time you end up with something like:

1: 5% homosexual
2: 3 %
3: 1 %
4: 0 %
1B: 5%
3B: 1%

And the prevalence went down, because while the groups with more homosexuality did better, there's nothing to increase the prevalence of homosexuality within the group.

Of course, all this is only meaningful if homosexuality is actually selected against on an individual level, which, as I said earlier, I don't think we have any reason to believe.

Anyway, I think you already agreed with all that and I'm needlessly repeating myself.

Gotcha. Thanks for clearing it up.

 

[Tempest_Rage]

Taking into consideration the two links to summaries of studies from Tatyana earlier -

http://www.newscientist.com/article...tructured-like-those-of-the-opposite-sex.html

and

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/06/080617151845.htm

- where it seems gay men have brains similar to straight females, and lesbians have brains similar to straight men.

Plus the fact that animals like the clown fish can switch sex if and when needed.

Transgenders, hermaphrodites...

Plus the fact that humans can undergo natural sex change under certain conditions - from Wikipedia:

Several medical conditions can result in a natural sex change in humans, where the appearance at birth is somewhat, mostly, or completely of one sex, but changes over the course of a lifetime to being somewhat, mostly or completely of the other sex. The overwhelming majority of such changes are from a female appearance at birth to a male appearance after puberty, due to either 5-alpha-reductase deficiency (5alpha-RD-2) or 17-beta-hydroxysteroid dehydrogenase deficiency (17beta-HSD-3).[2][3] A relative handful of male to female changes have been reported, and the etiologies of these are not well understood.

And now for my late night crappy hypothetical conclusions! Err, this may be very bad, just a friendly warning...

We could conclude that sex is a continuum. What we call homosexuality still seems to be a pairing of female with male (if the studies in the top two links are right), albeit in the brain. So really, homosexuality and it's evolutionary success or failure is not an important point here, since it's not homosexuality that would be selected for, but successful levels of maleness and femaleness. Which isn't necessarily static even during one individuals lifetime, and so can't go extinct.

If homosexuals (gay men in this example) are really just womanly men with womanly brains (if we follow the info from the studies), then homosexuality would only actually occur if manly men with male brains fell in love with and wanted to buy furniture with other manly men with male brains. Or any two individuals on the exact same spot on the continuum, actually. The studies didn't compare couples did it?

As it stands now, (in light of all of the above) it looks like homosexuality maybe doesn't exist, unless we stick to the common social definition of sex which is "if it dangles, he's a man, if it don't, she's your gal" which ignores the internal physiology and possibility of a sex continuum completely.

Ooo homosexual wooo... hmm it's very late, and I'm very sleep deprived but I think it kinda makes sense if you ignore my lame jokes. Hopefully it still will in the morning. Of course if those two studies are crap, or I have misinterpreted them horribly (entirely possible), or have forgotten something else very important (also entirely possible) then my whole post is pointless and I apologize.

 

[Mark6]

And now for my late night crappy hypothetical conclusions! Err, this may be very bad, just a friendly warning...

We could conclude that sex is a continuum. What we call homosexuality still seems to be a pairing of female with male (if the studies in the top two links are right), albeit in the brain. So really, homosexuality and it's evolutionary success or failure is not an important point here, since it's not homosexuality that would be selected for, but successful levels of maleness and femaleness. Which isn't necessarily static even during one individuals lifetime, and so can't go extinct.

If homosexuals (gay men in this example) are really just womanly men with womanly brains (if we follow the info from the studies), then homosexuality would only actually occur if manly men with male brains fell in love with and wanted to buy furniture with other manly men with male brains. Or any two individuals on the exact same spot on the continuum, actually. The studies didn't compare couples did it?

As it stands now, (in light of all of the above) it looks like homosexuality maybe doesn't exist, unless we stick to the common social definition of sex which is "if it dangles, he's a man, if it don't, she's your gal" which ignores the internal physiology and possibility of a sex continuum completely.

What you wrote resonates with a study I read about a year ago (I do not have a link, unfortunately). The study focused on siblings of homosexual vs. heterosexual men, and found sisters of gay men were not only straight, but had higher than average sexual desire. The study's tentative conclusion was that there may not be such thing as gene for homosexuality, but rather gene for androphilia -- a desire for men. Such gene would obviously propagate quite successfully -- through women, even if it were dead-end in men.

 

[little grey rabbit]

What you wrote resonates with a study I read about a year ago (I do not have a link, unfortunately). The study focused on siblings of homosexual vs. heterosexual men, and found sisters of gay men were not only straight, but had higher than average sexual desire. The study's tentative conclusion was that there may not be such thing as gene for homosexuality, but rather gene for androphilia -- a desire for men. Such gene would obviously propagate quite successfully -- through women, even if it were dead-end in men.

Alternatively if might just mean there was a genetic basis for heightened sexual drive (I always find the expression "gene for" horribly misleading) that in a proportion of men might lead to homosexuality in a sort reciprocal greater availability. Only when society began to develop concepts of sexual identity and bipolar spectrum did this morph into an exclusive sexual orientation and therefore a potential barrier to reproduction.

Before that it would have been advantageous all round. I am not sure that a gene for "desire for men" would have that much advantages in pre-historic society. Bonobos may indeed be pin-up apes for the rainbow coalition, but I am not sure female bonobos are given much choice in regards to whether or not they have off-spring.

 

[Cuddles]

I don't think that's entirely correct. Male homosexuality appears to have higher health risks associated with it, whereas female homosexuality (at least as far as HIV is concerned) is protective when compared with heterosexual sex.

As Skeptic Ginger notes, I think that is only true regarding anal sex specifically, and not homosexuality itself.

Although that does actually raise an interesting tangential point - it's entirely possible for something to be detrimental now even if it wasn't in the past. HIV is a very new virus, particularly in evolutionary terms covering millions of years. Even if we assume that HIV definitely has a strong detrimental effect on gay people, that would only have been a factor for the last few decades. It wouldn't make any more sense to say that homosexuality is bad because of such a factor than it would to say being white is bad because there's now a hole in the ozone layer.

On another slightly related note, this also highlights the inconsistency of homophobes. If something is detrimental to the individual, it will tend to be selected against the more it is practised. Trying to suppress gayness would result in it lasting in the gene pool for much longer since the risky activities would not be evolved out. If people really believed being gay is bad and that it should be eradicated from the human race, they should encourage gay people to be as gay as possible in order to ensure the strongest selection pressure against them.

We could conclude that sex is a continuum. What we call homosexuality still seems to be a pairing of female with male (if the studies in the top two links are right), albeit in the brain.

That doesn't seem to follow. If gay men have brains similar to straight women, then a gay couple isn't a male brain and a female brain, it's two female brains. It's still two similar people, it's just that they both have brains more similar to straight people of the opposite gender. Your theory would only work if only one out of each couple had their brain different.

 

[Mark6]

Before that it would have been advantageous all round. I am not sure that a gene for "desire for men" would have that much advantages in pre-historic society. Bonobos may indeed be pin-up apes for the rainbow coalition, but I am not sure female bonobos are given much choice in regards to whether or not they have off-spring.

I suspect a female bonobo who for whatever reason did not want to have sex, could beat off an unwanted male. As I recall, Coco (the famous sign-langage gorilla) nearly killed the first male gorilla who was supposed to mate with her, despite him being much bigger and stronger than her.

 

[little grey rabbit]

I suspect a female bonobo who for whatever reason did not want to have sex, could beat off an unwanted male. As I recall, Coco (the famous sign-langage gorilla) nearly killed the first male gorilla who was supposed to mate with her, despite him being much bigger and stronger than her.

And what is your estimate of the percentage of voluntary fertile non-childbearing female bonobos?

Before we start building too many evolutionary superstructures.

 

[pgwenthold]

Except that we do know that it is not so simple as a single gene, and it is clearly not as simple as having the Fabulous Gene makes you gay.(hey if there can be a Sonic the Hedgehog Gene why not a Fabulous Gene?)

There might be a genetic component but it is likely not a simple single gene that does it, but a confluence of factors genetic and environmental.

I think that is a false dichotomy, although it depends on what you mean by "environmental." I think there are other options, including "born like that" (that don't involve genetics, although you might consider "in utero" to be environmental) and "born with the possibility of." All of which include the possibility of it "being a choice" or "not being a choice."

Genetics are a complicated beast. Ob nurses have reported things like newborn identical twins showing different personalities from the minute they are born, and even having different hair characteristics (one's is straight as a pin, and the other is curled). Now, hair is one thing that is pretty clearly genetic, but even there, people with the exact same DNA can express differences.

Are hair properties genetic? If so, then how can newborn identical twins have different hair properties? It's a subtle game.

 

[Mark6]

And what is your estimate of the percentage of voluntary fertile non-childbearing female bonobos?

Before we start building too many evolutionary superstructures.

No idea.

 

[Mirrorglass]

That doesn't seem to follow. If gay men have brains similar to straight women, then a gay couple isn't a male brain and a female brain, it's two female brains. It's still two similar people, it's just that they both have brains more similar to straight people of the opposite gender. Your theory would only work if only one out of each couple had their brain different.

No, there's a perceived female-male couple inside both of the gay man brains. You see, even if the brain of a gay man is a female brain, if his body is male, he is perceived as a man. The point is his brain (according to this theory) perceives itself as a female brain. So while a gay couple would, indeed, be a pair of female brains, neither of the men - or the sexual part of their brains, to be spesific - would know that.

 

[thaiboxerken]

While the question of whether or not homosexuality is a choice or not is academically interesting, I think it should not play a role in determining the morality of homosexuality.

To me, if it's a choice or not doesn't matter. What the anti-homosexuals have to do is convince me that homosexuality is detrimental to society. So far, they have yet to do so. Every detriment that they've shown has been a result of their own homophobias.