Is homosexuality genetic?

[Tatyana]

For the purposes of this debate, I did not wish to make a value judgement on whether homosexuality was right or wrong. I was interested only in analysing things logically from as neutral perspective as possible.

My solution to the neutrality issue, was simply to give both perspectives at once.


There are many people who grow out of, or are 'cured' of their homosexuality, as they get older. Do you feel offended by this?
Do you wish them to remain as homosexuals, even though this might be an unnatural state for them??

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

That is as logical as saying, 'I didn't want to put a value judgment on infants, if crying is right or wrong' and if that demonstrates a 'weakness' in them'.


I would assert that people being 'cured' is unnatural and that even trying to 'cure' homosexuals of their 'unnatural state' reveals an obvious cultural conditioning/brainwashing that 'homosexuality is bad'.

It isn't.

It is a completely natural, biological phenomena found throughout the animal kingdom.

 

[McHrozni]

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?)

Hence the usage of the conditional "if". I was trying to show that even in that extreme case, eradication of homosexuality through any means was at the very least highly implausible.

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.

Which is exactly what I said earlier was my favorite theory in post #28 of this thread.

McHrozni

 

[Mirrorglass]

I agree that kin selection works, and is an important part of natural selection, but your description here seems to mix it up with group selection. And while group selection can occur in some special circumstances, it's very hard to get that mathematics to work out, especially when the trait in question is selected against on an individual level.

To be clear: it's not that traits that are beneficial to the larger group are selected for, it's that traits that are beneficial to kin are selected for.
And to understand how that happens, I prefer the idea of gene level selection: genes for traits that cause those genes to proliferate (whether due to the reproduction of the individual whose genes cause that trait, or the reproduction of others who carry that gene) are selected for.



Those things are all easily explained by individual level selection, though, without even kin selection: we survive in a social environment, and our relationships with others effect our ability to survive and reproduce. Adapting to that environment doesn't require any special explanations.

That's group selection, and it doesn't work. Or, more clearly, it can't explain traits that are selected against on an individual basis, because the individual level selection would swamp that group level selection.
Note that group selection is different from kin selection, which does work and explains a great number of things in the natural world.

There is no "overall fitness of the human race".

None of what I'm saying suggests that homosexuality is not selected for, mind you: there are plenty of ways that it could be selected for. Kin selection, which you mentioned, is one: homosexuality might lead to having, on average, fewer children, but more nieces and nephews, in the same way that sterility in ants leads to more nieces and nephews (the ants in a new colony are the nieces and nephews of the sterile workers in this one). And since the genes for homosexuality are likely shared by me and my (reproducing) brothers and sisters, they get passed on.

There are plenty of other possibilities, but I don't think group selection is one of them.

It wasn't really my intention to claim homosexuals are responsible for the human race thriving. "Overall fitness of the human race" and other parts of my post you took as references to group selection were not so much that as just some careless wording; my original post was intended to refer to pretty much just kin selection.

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.

 

[Mirrorglass]

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

That is as logical as saying, 'I didn't want to put a value judgment on infants, if crying is right or wrong' and if that demonstrates a 'weakness' in them'.


I would assert that people being 'cured' is unnatural and that even trying to 'cure' homosexuals of their 'unnatural state' reveals an obvious cultural conditioning/brainwashing that 'homosexuality is bad'.

It isn't.

It is a completely natural, biological phenomena found throughout the animal kingdom.

Sorry to but in, but I beg to differ somewhat.

I agree that homosexuality is a natural phenomenon, and there is nothing right or wrong about it.

However, if we accept those premises, doesn't it also follow that there's nothing right or wrong about 'curing' it? Certainly, to try to 'cure' a homosexual person against their will would be an act of violence, and morally wrong. But we're not talking about that here; we're talking about a person who hasn't been born yet, and certainly hasn't had the time to develop an identity we could steal. I can't really see a child suffering from not being gay, if he never knows he might have been. As such, it wouldn't really be 'wrong' to use this straightening pill in utero.

If someone wants to systemically make all people straight, that certainly speaks of an intolerant attitude. But merely wanting to research the possibility of that doesn't necessarily mean the same thing. It is certainlty possible that homosexuality has a fairly clear cause, and feasible that it could be 'cured'. If such a 'cure' is possible, I'd like to know about it - not because I'd use it, but because I like to know how things work.

Basically, researching the root of a phenomenon isn't necessarily an attack against it, and just because something is 'natural' doesn't mean we shouldn't discuss what causes it - or what prevents it.

 

[politas]

Anyone claiming that homosexuals not breeding would lead to the elimination of homosexuality from the gene pool has to explain the existence of non-breeding males in pack environments. How do the genes for accepting a submissive, non-breeding role survive if only the dominant alpha males breed?

It all comes down to the error of thinking only in terms of individual survival, rather than in terms of gene survival.

A sibling has on average, half as much of your genome as your own child, so putting effort into guaranteeing two siblings' ability to mate is as effective a strategy as rearing your own child for perpetuating your genes. It also ideally takes one third the effort, since your parents are also working to guarantee their survival.

This makes being a non-breeding pack member a successful reproductive strategy for your genes. And that's what counts. Not whether you reproduce, but whether your genes are reproduced.

 

[HansMustermann]

Actually, they survive only because every pack member also has the genes to challenge to be the alpha. Any wolf who'd just be born submissive all around, would quickly get that out of the gene pool.

You can see that even in dogs, which already have been artifficially bred to be more docile than the wolves. But around two years old, males start to get randi and basically try to challenge your authority if they think they have half a chance.

Basically there is no gene to be a submissive beta as such. There is a genetic wiring to be a pack animal and need to be near the pack at all times, and a genetic wiring to try to assert oneself as the alpha. The rest of the pack are those who failed in that challenge, but still aren't "programmed" to just go, "screw it, what's the point of staying in this group then?"

That being a docile follower is simply the result of having no other options for the time being. You can't beat the alpha, and you can't leave because you're progrqammed to be scared ****less of being separated from the pack.

Both traits actually have good reasons to be selected. The trying to be an alpha, well, obviously, because most cubs are the alpha's. And following the pack at all cost, because the guys who'd leave the pack instead of fighting their way up will never become alphas and might even not survive to breed anyway.

 

[Drewbot]

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

That is as logical as saying, 'I didn't want to put a value judgment on infants, if crying is right or wrong' and if that demonstrates a 'weakness' in them'.


I would assert that people being 'cured' is unnatural and that even trying to 'cure' homosexuals of their 'unnatural state' reveals an obvious cultural conditioning/brainwashing that 'homosexuality is bad'.

It isn't.

It is a completely natural, biological phenomena found throughout the animal kingdom.

Is it possible that the biological nature that you refer to, could possibly be a biological disposition-for? In Narcolepsy, there is a genetic link to the Narcolepsy, but not everyone with the gene gets Narcolepsy. Is there a causal factor that has to happen to trigger the immune response that causes the actual onset of Narcolepsy?

Perhaps the Homosexual gene is carried in many people, however some causal factor has to happen to trigger the actual Homosexuality. Perhaps being exposed to Judy Garland records between the ages of 3 and 4 or something?

Since it is CARRIED in so many people, but not MANIFESTED, then the risk of the gene disappearing is not real.

 

[Roboramma]

It wasn't really my intention to claim homosexuals are responsible for the human race thriving. "Overall fitness of the human race" and other parts of my post you took as references to group selection were not so much that as just some careless wording; my original post was intended to refer to pretty much just kin selection.

Yeah, I thought so, I was mostly quibbling with your description of kin selection, because it seemed to be describing something closer to group selection than kin selection, but I may have read too much into it.

That being said, I don't believe group selection "doesn't work" either.

Well, I went a little overboard to say that it doesn't work. But, let me put it this way: the times when group selection can be effective are very rare, so rare that I doubt it has had much effect on human evolution.

I'm also of the impression that that's the general view in biology today: fifty or even thirty years ago it was still offered as an explanation of social behaviors, until someone tried to do that math.

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 may enhance the ability of a group of humans to function, but that doesn't suggest that those traits would proliferate. Let's say that smiling leads to my group surviving for a longer time than a neighboring group, but it also requires energy, which means that those individuals in my group who have the smiling gene get tired more quickly, and are more likely to starve during a famine.
Over time, my group outcompetes other groups. But the individuals within my group who don't smile outcome those who do, and thus smiling disappears from my group.
Of course, smiling may be neutral (or positive) within my group, in which case I can see group selection having a weak selective pressure, which will work.
So, as I said, I went too far to say it doesn't work, but it's rather a weak mechanism of evolution, and one easily swamped by individual level selection. Competition between groups has to be extremely fierce to make group selection a particularly important force in evolution.

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.

Sure, it's possible, but what stopped homosexuality from disappearing in other groups?

And I agree that group selection alone can't explain homosexuality - but that doesn't mean both forms of selection can't co-exist.

That I agree with, and I apologize for wording things too strongly.

 

[Jorghnassen]

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!

 

[HansMustermann]

I thought the story isn't that they were infected, but "tempted by the devil." Kinda funny how, out of all the things the devil could tempt one with -- you know, wealth beyond measure, a harem, fame, a chance to revive a loved one, a chance to fix an old mistake in life, heck even lots of pussy, etc -- he invariably tempts them with a bit o' cock. Funny that

 

[Mirrorglass]

Yeah, I thought so, I was mostly quibbling with your description of kin selection, because it seemed to be describing something closer to group selection than kin selection, but I may have read too much into it.

Well, I went a little overboard to say that it doesn't work. But, let me put it this way: the times when group selection can be effective are very rare, so rare that I doubt it has had much effect on human evolution.

I'm also of the impression that that's the general view in biology today: fifty or even thirty years ago it was still offered as an explanation of social behaviors, until someone tried to do that math.


It may enhance the ability of a group of humans to function, but that doesn't suggest that those traits would proliferate. Let's say that smiling leads to my group surviving for a longer time than a neighboring group, but it also requires energy, which means that those individuals in my group who have the smiling gene get tired more quickly, and are more likely to starve during a famine.
Over time, my group outcompetes other groups. But the individuals within my group who don't smile outcome those who do, and thus smiling disappears from my group.
Of course, smiling may be neutral (or positive) within my group, in which case I can see group selection having a weak selective pressure, which will work.
So, as I said, I went too far to say it doesn't work, but it's rather a weak mechanism of evolution, and one easily swamped by individual level selection. Competition between groups has to be extremely fierce to make group selection a particularly important force in evolution.

Yeah, I agree group selection is probably a fairly minor driving force of evolution.

Sure, it's possible, but what stopped homosexuality from disappearing in other groups?

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.

That I agree with, and I apologize for wording things too strongly.

I took no offense in the first place, but thanks anyway. Debate is fun, but it's good to keep the "friendly" next to the "lively".

 

[politas]

Actually, they survive only because every pack member also has the genes to challenge to be the alpha. Any wolf who'd just be born submissive all around, would quickly get that out of the gene pool.

And just as equally, a wolf who is born to not ever be submissive would also have problems when young. Thus the genes for non-breeding remain.

Basically there is no gene to be a submissive beta as such. There is a genetic wiring to be a pack animal and need to be near the pack at all times, and a genetic wiring to try to assert oneself as the alpha. The rest of the pack are those who failed in that challenge, but still aren't "programmed" to just go, "screw it, what's the point of staying in this group then?"

Yes, and every non-breeding member of the pack is a descendant of an alpha male. The genes for submission, according to the environment, have to be carried by the dominant alpha males, too.

That being a docile follower is simply the result of having no other options for the time being. You can't beat the alpha, and you can't leave because you're progrqammed to be scared ****less of being separated from the pack.

Both traits actually have good reasons to be selected. The trying to be an alpha, well, obviously, because most cubs are the alpha's. And following the pack at all cost, because the guys who'd leave the pack instead of fighting their way up will never become alphas and might even not survive to breed anyway.

I don't think your way of thinking can explain why they are scared of being separated from the pack. From the perspective of individual selection, going it alone is always going to have a greater chance of success than accepting a non-breeding role. Few submissive males in a pack become successful alphas later in life. They are more likely to be defeated by a younger challenger. That does not account for the success of the submission strategy. Their genes are successful because their siblings have many of the same genes.

 

[HansMustermann]

Because their whole survival strategy is based on hunting as a pack. The prey they hunt needs a pack to take down, and for smaller prey they're not as suited as other hunter species they'd compete with. A lynx or even fox will out-compete a lone wolf.

An individual who decided to live alone, would take itself out of the gene pool by mere starvation.

Basically not everything revolves around sex, and there still is no gene for submission as such. It's a species specialized to hunt as a group, and that acting as a group is really what's selected.

And at any rate, unlike homosexuality, there is no indication that some gene makes 10% of the wolves be born submissive and not even try for alpha. Much less that such a gene is somehow selected for. In the end the genes that survive are predominantly those of the alphas.

But also incidentally someone who leaves the pack would be dead instead of having any chance to ever be alpha. Or to put it otherwise, you never get to pass your gene on if you don't stay with the group and try to be the alpha.

Basically there is no selection of those who don't reproduce in that particular scenario. It's just that those who got to reproduce also had the behaviour of staying with the group, and in fact it was a pre-condition for their getting to reproduce lots in the first place. And their descendants inherit that tendency to stay with the group.

 

[Cuddles]

It is a completely natural, biological phenomena found throughout the animal kingdom.

So is, for example, a congenital heart defect. Just because something is natural does not make it good, or mean that trying to cure it must be bad.

Note that I'm not saying homosexuality is bad or that we should try to cure it, I'm just pointing out that using the naturalistic fallacy is not a good way to argue the case. Some natural phenomena are bad, some are good, and there's a whole continuum in between, so merely saying that homosexuality is natural is completely irrelevant to the question of whether it is good or bad or needs curing.

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.

 

[Belz...]

I have heard people say that homosexuality is genetic.

Didn't we have this thread a few thousand times ago ?

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

<snip>

The more interesting question for me is why do people have any exclusive sexual perferance at all. It seems to me that the ability to form both hetero and homosexual relations at different points in the maturing process, or even at the same time, would have any number of evolutionary advantages. Indeed, if I'm remembering correctly, many higher primates do just that.

I think that's a good question. Humans have sex for far more than just procreation.

Perhaps with no evolutionary pressures on our sexuality and less social stigma associated with having same-sex sexual relationships, humans will tend to become bisexual?

 

[Mark6]

Actually, they survive only because every pack member also has the genes to challenge to be the alpha. Any wolf who'd just be born submissive all around, would quickly get that out of the gene pool.

You can see that even in dogs, which already have been artifficially bred to be more docile than the wolves. But around two years old, males start to get randi and basically try to challenge your authority if they think they have half a chance.

Basically there is no gene to be a submissive beta as such. There is a genetic wiring to be a pack animal and need to be near the pack at all times, and a genetic wiring to try to assert oneself as the alpha. The rest of the pack are those who failed in that challenge, but still aren't "programmed" to just go, "screw it, what's the point of staying in this group then?"

That being a docile follower is simply the result of having no other options for the time being. You can't beat the alpha, and you can't leave because you're progrqammed to be scared ****less of being separated from the pack.

Both traits actually have good reasons to be selected. The trying to be an alpha, well, obviously, because most cubs are the alpha's. And following the pack at all cost, because the guys who'd leave the pack instead of fighting their way up will never become alphas and might even not survive to breed anyway.

You seem to think that submissive males never reproduce, which was the conventional wisdom 50 years ago, but is just plain wrong.

Genetic tests had shown that among pack mammals such as wolves and chimpanzees submissive males DO mate -- on the sly. Remaining outwardly submissive, yet sneaking around the alpha male's back is just as valid a reproductive strategy. You do not waste as much energy growing big and strong, and do not risk your life in as many fights. So yes, there is an evolutionary pressure to be submissive -- and sneaky.

I would say a lot of human behavior makes sense if you accept that we descended not only from chest-beating alphas, but also from a lot of sly betas.

 

[HansMustermann]

Humans don't live in that kind of packs where only the alphas reproduce, so I'd say the comparison to wolves is moot anyway if taken that far. I was only discussing to what extent selection by kin actually works (short version: the kin that reproduces must have the exact same genes, for those to survive, not just be the same species) rather than taking it as a 1 to 1 equivalence to humans.

In any great apes, it just doesn't work like in a wolf pack, so, yeah, we're very likely not descendants of chest thumping alphas. Because the structure in which only those reproduced never existed in our ancestry.

That said, there is a strong indication that at some point it was survival of the sneakiest in other aspects, and that might have been a factor in the increased brain size, while decreasing natural weapons and sexual dimorphism.

 

[iknownothing]

The real question of course is why would anybody care? What difference does it make? Would it be any less acceptable if there was no genetic involvement?

easily influenced...having a 'weakness'...weakness, in this case, would be defined as the opposite of internal strength, and simply means a bit more susceptible to environmental influences.

I thought the story isn't that they were infected, but "tempted by the devil." Kinda funny how, out of all the things the devil could tempt one with -- you know, wealth beyond measure, a harem, fame, a chance to revive a loved one, a chance to fix an old mistake in life, heck even lots of pussy, etc -- he invariably tempts them with a bit o' cock. Funny that

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.

Becoming offended by others' ideas, is not a constructive way of having an open minded discussion.

Not true. It depends on the ideas. Some ideas are so repugnant that there is no reason to be open minded toward them.

 

[Simon39759]

The real question of course is why would anybody care? What difference does it make? Would it be any less acceptable if there was no genetic involvement?

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.