Is homosexuality genetic?

[HansMustermann]

Actually no. If under certain conditions it could be an advantage to have part of the 'gay gene' then you could have more children. For example a gay person could have raise the children of their brothers and sisters. Or it may protect the person from something.

Or, more likely, it wouldn't really matter.

For the last several thousand years, being upper class meant more for the gene lottery than anything else. There's a reason most of western Europe is a descendant of Charlemagne, or at least nobility. The genes of the poor tended to die off. If you were a poor peasant or apprentice in the town, if you didn't starve in the first drought or when you get looted by both sides in a war, then the next plague would have a ridiculously higher chance to take you to meet your maker than it did the knights and above.

Plus, realistically, in the middle ages for everyone who wasn't nobility, at least from among the male progeny only one really had much of a chance to survive. Everyone but the eldest surviving son was usually kicked out and most either went outlaw and were hanged, or ran to a town and died of disease (mortality rate in towns was actually higher than how fast they could breed, so towns actually NEEDED a steady influx of hopeful peasants just to keep their population), or ran to join some mercenary band and was killed sooner or later (sometimes by the same king that hired them and now couldn't pay them.)

Not that it was better for girls, mind you. And in ancient times, for most slaves it was a delayed death sentence, and in Greece you'd actually get infibulated as a slave so you'd be guaranteed to be a genetic dead end.

Whereas the upper classes could often afford to keep another son around as a man at arms or such, and/or to arrange with the church to take one or two more.

So, really, social stratum eclipsed all other selection factors combined. Whether or not you're gay wouldn't even come close to being as big a selection factor as whether you're born rich or poor.

And that's another funny thing: pretty much you didn't have much choice but to breed anyway. The upper classes had arranged marriage, that had more to do with power games and cementing alliances, than with whether you like your partner at all. Many a prince or princess discovered that they'd rather kiss a frog than their betrothed, but it's not like they had much choice in the matter.

And, yes, they didn't have much choice even in the matter of breeding. Besides the social expectations and the advantages for oneself, simply put, if your family told you to breed, you did, or you'd get disowned and join those low-income dudes whose genes died out. And if you think that's just medieval, in ancient times (and not only) the father had such absolute power and control that he could even sell you into slavery if you annoyed him.

So basically even if you were gay, so what?

 

[casebro]

This is not really a question of 'want'. We don't experience homosexuality as 'choice' or 'fault' any more than you (presumably) experience heterosexuality as 'choice' or 'fault'.

Told you so.

 

[casebro]

The best sense so far is that it is a result of the prenatal environment.

That would cover birth order as well as the twins studies. So, "not your choice, you were born that way" is true. But not directly genetic either. But there may be an indirect link, something genetic that effects the in-womb environment. HPT axis maybe? Mom's genes the cause, not the baby's ?

 

[Bill Thompson]

I heard it is.

And the Mormon Church is making more gays through forced marrages to women. What fun.

 

[Alan]

The best sense so far is that it is a result of the prenatal environment.

That would cover birth order as well as the twins studies. So, "not your choice, you were born that way" is true. But not directly genetic either. But there may be an indirect link, something genetic that effects the in-womb environment. HPT axis maybe? Mom's genes the cause, not the baby's ?

I saw an old study yesterday that monozygotic twins are more likely to share the same sexuality than dizygotic twins.
http://archpsyc.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/abstract/48/12/1089

 

[the PC apeman]

Told you so.

Told me what? I see nothing for you to crow about.

 

[HansMustermann]

The best sense so far is that it is a result of the prenatal environment.

That would cover birth order as well as the twins studies. So, "not your choice, you were born that way" is true. But not directly genetic either. But there may be an indirect link, something genetic that effects the in-womb environment. HPT axis maybe? Mom's genes the cause, not the baby's ?

"Not your choice, you were born that way" is true in any case, because we can see on MRI that gay people have brain wiring (what lobe fires predominantly into which other lobe) like the opposite sex. We know that that particular wiring between lobes is already so at birth, regardless of how it may have happened, and we know that no personal choice will rewire THAT. Barring major damage, neuron rewiring happens on smaller scales, not on the high-bandwidth trunk that connects it all. So basically, yes, it's born and no choice will change it.

It's still a good question for genetics why that's possible. Can't a different set of genes produce better moms or better embryos, which aren't so borderline that 10% get wired differently?

The answer may well be that, basically, the alternative is worse. The DNA programming is anything but neat and orthogonal, and one gene can affect such unrelated stuff as from hair colour to pain sensitivity to reaction to analgesics to fight-or-flight reaction. No, seriously, one gene affects all those. A different set of genes which don't make the brain as susceptible to random wrong wiring may well also mean a smaller brain or otherwise a bigger selection pressure against.

Or a good combination may be on the other side of a local optimum, so no amount of evolution will get there any time soon. Sorta like, say, the lungs. It would obviously be an advantage to have the more effective bird lungs, but it likely won't happen, because it needs to roll back too many evolutionary changes and take a different branch, i.e., the path to that "better" goes through a lot worse. Evolution doesn't do that.

 

[ponderingturtle]

[off-topic]

Its kind of unfortunately that even people in the LGBT community validate that line of thought by arguing whether its a choice.

Anti-gay people have a created an entirely fabricated case that being gay is a choice, they then imply that a person can choose to be straight -- but why should they? Being gay is not immoral, there's no good reason why a person should choose to be straight, even if they could.

[/off-topic]

As for whether homosexuality is genetic, its interesting from a strictly scientific point of view.

I imagine there's probably a constellation of genes or characteristics that correlate with same-gender attraction, kind of the same way two parents with brown eyes can have children with green eyes and blue eyes.

The thing is that morality is tricky and saying something is moral or not can have people who disagree. A basic point if someone breaks into your house what is the moral vs immoral option? Running vs attacking them?

So simply stating morality will not convince people who define and arrive at their morals differently than you do. Now stating that it harms no one and is not a choice is something some will find convincing.

 

[Andrew Wiggin]

If gay was a choice, you'd think some of the anti-gay bigots would choose it, just to 'take one for the team' and prove the point. I know Dan Savage has publicly made the challenge, and so far no takers.

 

[Paulhoff]

So when do people choose to be straight.

Paul



I don't remember doing that.

 

[GodMark2]

Yes it is genetic, not one tree is gay.

Paul

Yeah, most are trannies.

Of those that aren't, the males are bi, and the females straight. Heck, the males don't even bother to check the species before trying to mate. I guess that's not to different from some humans, though.

 

[bruto]

While it's far from impossible for a gay person to live as a heterosexual and have children, for obvious reasons, their rate of reproduction will obviously be lower than that of the general population. Surely this means the 'gay gene' would eventually die out?

I'm not sure why you would find these things obvious. I'm reminded of a long-ago great great uncle who was, it seems, gay. He married as one did back then, and the story goes that he had sex with his wife just twice. He had two children, and that ended that part of their relationship, whereupon he shifted his attentions to choirboys.

My now ex-wife, now out as a lesbian, had three children.

Whether you regard it as a consummate pleasure or a distasteful task, it's not all that hard to populate your world.

 

[Ian Osborne]

I'm not sure why you would find these things obvious. I'm reminded of a long-ago great great uncle who was, it seems, gay. He married as one did back then, and the story goes that he had sex with his wife just twice. He had two children, and that ended that part of their relationship, whereupon he shifted his attentions to choirboys.

My now ex-wife, now out as a lesbian, had three children.

Whether you regard it as a consummate pleasure or a distasteful task, it's not all that hard to populate your world.

It's obvious because those who view heterosexual sex as a 'distasteful task' are likely to do it less often than those who find it a 'consummate pleasure'. Remember, we're talking about evolution now. Over long periods of time, even a small difference in the rate of reproduction would e enough to eventually see the gay gene disappear.

As others have pointed out since, my model is too simplistic and a genetic cause of homosexuality isn't dependent on a straightforward yes-or-no gay gene. If it was, the gene would've died out.

 

[Complexity]

It's obvious because those who view heterosexual sex as a 'distasteful task' are likely to do it less often than those who find it a 'consummate pleasure'. Remember, we're talking about evolution now. Over long periods of time, even a small difference in the rate of reproduction would e enough to eventually see the gay gene disappear.

As others have pointed out since, my model is too simplistic and a genetic cause of homosexuality isn't dependent on a straightforward yes-or-no gay gene. If it was, the gene would've died out.

Only if being gay were of negative value overall. If it were of neutral value, it could be conserved.

Of greater interest, if an animal being gay provided some benefits to its genes (carried most strongly in itself, in its offspring, and in its siblings' offspring) it would be more likely to be conserved and to spread.

So, rather than assume that being gay is a negative thing, perhaps it is time we consider the benefits that might derive from being gay, both for the individual and for its wider family. *

* Just because this can be the case doesn't mean that being gay is always fun, especially in the United States - merely that it may provide benefit.

 

[SumDood]

Even if it is genetic, we more than likely have 'genetically gay' people happily living straight lives and 'genetically straight' people happily living gay lives.

Personally i think environment has a whole lot more to do with it than people think. People develop preferences. In general, American men prefer women to shave their legs and armpits. To not do so is a major turn off for most. That's not a problem in some European countries. Is that preference genetic? Of course not. People develop fetishes for all kinds of crazy things from their environment. How much of a stretch would it be for someone to develop a sexual attraction to people of the same sex?

I know some people might be offended my be comparing fetishes to sexual preference. To them I apologize, that is not my intent. I'm just stating what i believe.

 

[Hoppy]

My question to people that are sure that homosexuality is a choice: how many guys did you have sex with before you decided it wasn't for you? Usually ends that discussion.

 

[bruto]

It's obvious because those who view heterosexual sex as a 'distasteful task' are likely to do it less often than those who find it a 'consummate pleasure'. Remember, we're talking about evolution now. Over long periods of time, even a small difference in the rate of reproduction would e enough to eventually see the gay gene disappear.

As others have pointed out since, my model is too simplistic and a genetic cause of homosexuality isn't dependent on a straightforward yes-or-no gay gene. If it was, the gene would've died out.

I understand your point but I think you miss mine. Given how simple the process is to initiate, and how few times you need to do it, I suspect the desire to have children can easily outweigh the lack of desire to conceive them. Reluctant breeders who time it right and perform the act once a year will have just as many children as a couple who go at it like rabbits. If the "gay gene" is a bit flexible, and especially if other social factors mentioned in this thread apply, there's no reason to expect it to die out.

I'm reminded of an old joke, about a census taker who comes to a cabin in the woods. A couple of pairs of twins are playing in the yard, and the woman of the house comes out with a pair of twins in her arms. After the official part, the census taker asks, "It's not part of the census, but I'm just wondering, do you get twins every time?" The woman answers "Hell no, thousands of times I aint got nothin at all."

 

[Pup]

"Not your choice, you were born that way" is true in any case, because we can see on MRI that gay people have brain wiring (what lobe fires predominantly into which other lobe) like the opposite sex.

What I don't understand, then, is what differentiates the brain wiring of transgender people from homosexual people.

If a person who appears male on the outside, has a brain wired like a female, you'd think that would make him transgender, not gay. And if one thinks there's not a significant difference between the two, ask him if he'd like his penis removed. I suspect there would be a fairly distinct difference in the answer, between people who are gay or transgender. So what in the brain structure makes the difference?

 

[Ian Osborne]

I understand your point but I think you miss mine. Given how simple the process is to initiate, and how few times you need to do it, I suspect the desire to have children can easily outweigh the lack of desire to conceive them. Reluctant breeders who time it right and perform the act once a year will have just as many children as a couple who go at it like rabbits.

Yes, but you're talking about social humans making plans. In evolutionary terms, you have to go back much farther, and start with our ape-like ancestors.

If the "gay gene" is a bit flexible, and especially if other social factors mentioned in this thread apply, there's no reason to expect it to die out.

Absolutely, and as others have pointed out, it is indeed flexible. My argument was erroneous as it assumed a gay gene you either have or haven't got, which is an over-simplified model of how genetic homosexuality might work.

 

[Alan]

Even if it is genetic, we more than likely have 'genetically gay' people happily living straight lives and 'genetically straight' people happily living gay lives.

Personally i think environment has a whole lot more to do with it than people think. People develop preferences. In general, American men prefer women to shave their legs and armpits. To not do so is a major turn off for most. That's not a problem in some European countries. Is that preference genetic? Of course not. People develop fetishes for all kinds of crazy things from their environment. How much of a stretch would it be for someone to develop a sexual attraction to people of the same sex?

I know some people might be offended my be comparing fetishes to sexual preference. To them I apologize, that is not my intent. I'm just stating what i believe.

It is clear that the subtleties of attraction can be environmental, but it's not so clear that this applies as much to the overall picture of which sex/es somebody is attracted to if any.