Will homosexuality die out?

[Flame of Anor]

I just had this thought. I'm sure you all know how scientists have been saying that homosexuality is genetic. Well, now that homosexuals have been getting more rights, not being forced by societal pressures into heterosexual marriages, doesn't that mean that they won't be passing on their genes anymore--and thus that homosexuality will eventually die out? Understand, I'm implying no value judgments; this is just scientific curiosity.

[RabbitHoleLost]

Someone please lock this thread now.
While you claim this isn't a moral debate, it does lend to political debate and the ever-flame-inviting debate of whether or not homosexuality is something from birth or that you grow into.

[Kaihaku]

Someone please lock this thread now.
While you claim this isn't a moral debate, it does lend to political debate and the ever-flame-inviting debate of whether or not homosexuality is something from birth or that you grow into.

Yeah.

Someone might as well start topics on the creation of the world or the health aspects of abortion claiming that they will result in purely scientific discussions.

[Rettu Skcollob]

Someone please lock this thread now.
While you claim this isn't a moral debate, it does lend to political debate and the ever-flame-inviting debate of whether or not homosexuality is something from birth or that you grow into.

Indeed. Although your intentions are probably benign, it's just asking for flames.

[LCR]

Probably not.
I don't think (or have come across any scientific evidence) that homosexuality is purely genetic (or determined by genetics at all), so no, it won't die out just because you can't produce offspring in same-gender relationships.

[skywalker]

Wow. Way to harsh the man's buzz. I admittedly thought the topic would "bait flames" when I opened, but I was pleasantly surprised.

I think it's pretty well accepted that not everyone who is gay was born that way. Some people do choose it. And while some homosexuals might argue that those aren't "real" homosexuals, I think that's a little silly.

Also, even if it is strictly genetic, there are plenty of ways it could be spread. Think about color-blindness. You don't have to be color-blind to spread the color-blind gene. In the same way, genetic homosexuals could have brothers or sisters who carry the gene(from the father or the mother) but do not express it.

I'm really not quite convinced that it's always genetic, tho. Not that that's a bad thing. I'm just saying. It can be a choice and it's perfectly alright if it is. Being a choice doesn't make it "not real" or what not.

[Inyssius Tor]

Animals who have been around much longer than we have can be homosexual, right? Wouldn't that provide an answer?

[Kaihaku]

Animals who have been around much longer than we have can be homosexual, right? Wouldn't that provide an answer?

Wait, are you suggesting observation as a means of understanding reality instead of asking random people what they think?

[Evil DM Mark3]

Animals who have been around much longer than we have can be homosexual, right? Wouldn't that provide an answer?Not the same thing. Apes and lower primates form the primary examples and they are usually bisexual, if the term applies. You see the lower level of intelligence begs the question of if it is choice or learned group behavior. I am not an expert here but seeing as one of the next big steps in genetics looks likely to be a child born of two mothers / two mothers via surrogate the answer looks like no.
Yeah.

Someone might as well start topics on the creation of the world or the health aspects of abortion claiming that they will result in purely scientific discussions.
Wait, are you suggesting observation as a means of understanding reality instead of asking random people what they think?I love the smell of sarcasm in the morning. It smells like... porridge.

[BisectedBrioche]

Most psychologists (and researchers in other related fields) agree that homosexuality may have a genetic element but other factors are present. Note that this doesn't make this a "choice", as it doesn't exclude enviromental factors.

Basically the argument for such things goes that if homosexuality (or any aspect of a person) is genetic then certain rates will always apply. Homosexuals would have 50% of their immediate genetic relatives (siblings, parents, children) being gay, and 100% of their genetically identical relatives (in the case of identical twins) also be homosexuals. While studies have found that there is some correlation between relatives there isn't the expected ratios needed to prove that genetics is the only cause.

[Dhavaer]

I say probably not, for two reasons.

1) It's probably not totally genetic; like a lot of other things physiological sexuality is probably influenced by hormones and similar thing in utero.

2) Genes that influence sexuality in one gender probably do something different in the other. The general consensus is, I think, that the divide isn't straight/gay but androphilic/gynophilic, so if you do whatever to a female fetus and that makes her a lesbian, doing to same thing to a male fetus will make him straight. Not too sure about that, but I have heard that one set of genes that promotes male homosexuality promotes fertility in women, so that one's going to stick around.

So yeah. Genetics and sexuality are both too complex to say anything for sure for a moment. And if anyone here's a geneticist, I'd be interested to know if you've heard anything about those male=gay/female=fertile genes.

[skywalker]

Not the same thing. Apes and lower primates form the primary examples and they are usually bisexual, if the term applies. You see the lower level of intelligence begs the question of if it is choice or learned group behavior. I am not an expert here but seeing as one of the next big steps in genetics looks likely to be a child born of two mothers / two mothers via surrogate the answer looks like no.I love the smell of sarcasm in the morning. It smells like... porridge.

What about dolphins? Wow, that seems like a really vacuous answer to a rather intelligent statement.


Most psychologists (and researchers in other related fields) agree that homosexuality may have a genetic element but other factors are present. Note that this doesn't make this a "choice", as it doesn't exclude enviromental factors.

Basically the argument for such things goes that if homosexuality (or any aspect of a person) is genetic then certain rates will always apply. Homosexuals would have 50% of their immediate genetic relatives (siblings, parents, children) being gay, and 100% of their genetically identical relatives (in the case of identical twins) also be homosexuals. While studies have found that there is some correlation between relatives there isn't the expected ratios needed to prove that genetics is the only cause.

This is exactly what I said!

[Narmoth]

Okay, I can ansver a bit of this if we make some assumptions that have little base in the real world, but is :
1. We define homosexuality as sexual attraction to the same sex as yourself (in reality things are a bit more comlicated)
2. We assume for the sake of this argument that homosexuality is a genetic trait, bound on one place on one of the chromosomes (with the exception of sex chromosomes, in which case one sex would be more dispositioned than the other). (Of course, there is to our knowledge such a gene, but for the sake of argument and simplicity let's say that there is one)
3. We assume that homosexuals don't pass on their genes (again, a outrageous oversimplification)
4. If homosexuality is genetically based, it would be a recessive gene, not a dominant gene, as heterosexuality is the dominant trait (since there are to our knowledge many more heterosexuals than homosexuals)
5. A recessive gene will have it's trait expressed only if it's present on both of the chromosome pairs, and a dominant gene will be expressed if it's present on one or both of the chromosome pairs. (oversimplification)
6. In an evolutionary context, the trait "homosexuality" is unfavorable, as people with the trait will have less (or none) offspring than those without it. (What is evolutionary favorable is only descriptive. We can't based on it apply value only that it is. This can never be an argument against homosexuality)

Now let's look at a breed of mice (whom I use to explain genetics, not homosexuality):
There is a recessive gene in mice that is lethal if the mice have both pairs. They die soon after birth.
The dominant gene isn't lethal, and the combination of the recessive gene and the dominant gene isn't lethal either.
Obviously, the recessive gene can't be passed on by those who express it, as they die before growing up. Therefore it have to be the mice with both the dominant and recessive gene, who appear normal in every aspect, that pass it on.

Why isn't a "unfavorable" gene removed by evolution?
Well, there can be other benefits linked to the trait.
One example is sickle cell anemia, a disease not uncommon in central Africa.
Now, those who express both of the recessive gene get worse health and die more easily.
But those with one or both of the recessive gene will be more or less immune to malaria, a dangerous disease in those parts.
Therefore, the disadvantage of having one recessive gene is more than weighted up by the advantage of malaria immunity, and the gene is passed on, killing those who get both.
In US, on the other hand, the same gene is disappearing from the Afro-American population due to the lack of malaria in US

[Eldan]

You should also include the possibility that Homosexuality is (at least partially) dominant, but extremely rare. In which case, it would actually die out rapidly.

Disclaimer: genetic assumptions here. It doesn't have to be genetic at all, since correlations between relatives can also be due to shared environment rather than genes.

[Evil DM Mark3]

I just realised somthing. This thread has fallen down a hole in Hollywood Genetics.
(http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/LegoGenetics)
With the exception of a few very rare traits (as the number of traits is low, not that the genetic options are rare) no one thing is coded for by a gene, but rather by a complicated iteration between genes and the proteins they code for and some traits have infact been linked to multiple, unrelated, sources. There is not skin colour gene, no height gene and no vision gene. Why would sexuality, something easily as (if you will excuse the pun) non-black and white as skin colour be any different even if it is genetic?

[bosssmiley]

I just had this thought. I'm sure you all know how scientists have been saying that homosexuality is genetic.

You forgot the inevitable qualifier of "...but more research is needed." :smallwink:


Well, now that homosexuals have been getting more rights, not being forced by societal pressures into heterosexual marriages, doesn't that mean that they won't be passing on their genes any more--and thus that homosexuality will eventually die out?

Probably not. Human sexuality is a complex and nuanced thing; not a cut-and-dried, 'genetics is destiny' homo/hetero binary opposition. Whatever genetic mutations - or combination thereof - which gave rise to a predisposition to homosexuality will probably continue to recur as a result of the wonders of meiosis even among heterosexual pairings.


I just realised something. This thread has fallen down a hole in Hollywood Genetics. (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/LegoGenetics)

Maybe a Caution sign of some kind would help:



Warning!
Big words and complex concepts aheadWhere contextually appropriate read 'codon' or 'expressed quality' for 'gene'.
If you don't know enough about genetics to make these distinctions and understand where to use which, then hush up and attend to your biology textbooks.

[Narmoth]

You should also include the possibility that Homosexuality is (at least partially) dominant, but extremely rare. In which case, it would actually die out rapidly.

Well, homosexuality isn't extremely rare, so I gave an answer that didn't include that possibility. But yes, in theory it could be that.
Still, I personally put much more importance on other factors than genetics in this issue.


Disclaimer: genetic assumptions here. It doesn't have to be genetic at all, since correlations between relatives can also be due to shared environment rather than genes.

Well, the discussion was in the start assuming a strong genetic component. To start on environmental, social and psychological components would be beyond most participants knowledge and anyway lead rapidly to the sort of discussion that is strictly banned on this forum due to divergence in schools of understanding in the above mentioned disciplines.


I just realised somthing. This thread has fallen down a hole in Hollywood Genetics.
(http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/LegoGenetics)
With the exception of a few very rare traits (as the number of traits is low, not that the genetic options are rare) no one thing is coded for by a gene, but rather by a complicated iteration between genes and the proteins they code for and some traits have infact been linked to multiple, unrelated, sources. There is not skin colour gene, no height gene and no vision gene. Why would sexuality, something easily as (if you will excuse the pun) non-black and white as skin colour be any different even if it is genetic?

Well, I said it was a simplification explaining why the trait didn't need to become extinct because of the lack of reproduction by those expressing the trait rather than just bearing the gene for it

[kamikasei]

Also, even if it is strictly genetic, there are plenty of ways it could be spread. Think about color-blindness. You don't have to be color-blind to spread the color-blind gene. In the same way, genetic homosexuals could have brothers or sisters who carry the gene(from the father or the mother) but do not express it.

Just so. (And I doubt it'd be "a gene" rather than a range of complex sets of them.)

There is also the fact that developmental factors can have a strong influence (this is not "how you were raised", but "the environment in which you gestated" as opposed to solely "your own genetic makeup"). For example, I believe there were some findings that nth sons were more likely to be gay as n increased; which makes sense from the point of view of wanting later children to support the offspring of earlier ones rather than compete with them for mates and resources.

[Eldan]

All I'm saying is based on extremely simplified genetics. I could also go into much more depth about Quantitative Trait Loci and their mapping and other such things.
But you know what? It's not really worth it for this topic. For one thing, it would be hard to discuss in a manner that people without knowledge on the subject understand and the topic is not about in-depht genetics.
My answer to the question is:
Yes, could be genetic. I mean, we can say that much for almost anything. No, it's probably not determined by one locus, few things are. I'ts probably quantitiative rather than mendelian. It certainly has environmental components.

Now, for the question of dieing out: given the assumption that it will not simply vanish due to drift or other random factors, we can assume that it probably won't, especially if it is quantitative.

[averagejoe]

4. If homosexuality is genetically based, it would be a recessive gene, not a dominant gene, as heterosexuality is the dominant trait (since there are to our knowledge many more heterosexuals than homosexuals)

Untrue; dwarfism (or achondroplasia iffun I want to sound smart) for one, is dominant, but most people don't have it.

[BisectedBrioche]

This is exactly what I said!

Not quite. You were arguing that the "allele" could survive by being latent (and thus being passed on in relatives who are strait). I was arguing the fact that homosexuality does not have a high enough rate of concordence in relatives to indicate that the causes are solely genetic.

[Narmoth]

Untrue; dwarfism (or achondroplasia iffun I want to sound smart) for one, is dominant, but most people don't have it.

Yeah, but they can pass it on. For this discussion it was given that homosexuals wouldn't pass their genes on.
An if it was a dominant gene, most of a homosexuals offspring would be homosexuals, and their offspring in turn....
While those who weren't homosexual would get offspring that weren't homosexuals either...
From observation, we know that it's not so.

[BisectedBrioche]

Yeah, but they can pass it on. For this discussion it was given that homosexuals wouldn't pass their genes on.
An if it was a dominant gene, most of a homosexuals offspring would be homosexuals, and their offspring in turn....
While those who weren't homosexual would get offspring that weren't homosexuals either...
From observation, we know that it's not so.

Sorry to be picky but you have dominant and recessive "alleles" not genes. An allele is basically a variation in a given gene. For example you have a gene for eye colour, and then an allele for blue eyes, an allele for green eyes and so on.

Anyway, more directly whether an allele is dominant or recessive does not affect whether it is passed on. Even if someone inherits only one recessive allele (with the other being dominant) they still have the allele, its just not manifesting and their descendants are still able to have it.

To demonstrate this I'll use the example of the most common pair dominant/recessive alleles. Men have an X chromosome and a Y chromosome (making them XY), while (barring a few rare anonomolies) women have two X chromosomes (making them XX), making the Y chromosome the dominant one. As with all alleles you receive one from each parent. The mother will always pass on an X chromosome (analogous to someone who manifests the trait of the recessive allele, in this case being female) while the father has one of each, thus a 50% chance of passing either on (obviously more complex combinations exist with other alleles, as in most cases its possible to have two dominant alleles but the principle still holds out). Whatever the sex of the child its still possible for its own children to be male or female.

[Collin152]

Three things:
It's lasted this long, hasn't it?

Humans aren't evolving anymore, sentience tends to shoot natural selection in the knee; the line will go on, by one means or another!

It's probably not genetic. If it was that simple, you'd think it'd have been evident after a few hundred screenings.

[Vuzzmop]

Three things:
It's lasted this long, hasn't it?

Humans aren't evolving anymore, sentience tends to shoot natural selection in the knee; the line will go on, by one means or another!

It's probably not genetic. If it was that simple, you'd think it'd have been evident after a few hundred screenings.

How do you know this? what other fully sentient species can you name that no longer appear to be evolving. white people used to all be lactose intolerant. Think about that.

Also; how for the love of Ghandi has this thread gone for so long without being locked? Anyone wanna place bets?

[Collin152]

How do you know this? what other fully sentient species can you name that no longer appear to be evolving.

You forgot a question mark, dear.
I can name the Kith'greezp, but you're not likely to believe they exist, are you?

Anyway, it's just conjecture based on simple logic: Natural selection says that traits that help you reproduce will survive. Sentience means that we can let pretty much anyone live, regardless of where they might be by dint of genetics alone: We can provide food for anyone who can work for it, we can provide healthcare for the same, and so on. Those who are weak find that they survive to reproduction age anyways, and can pass on debilitating traits more easily.
Likewise, we like to think our ability to reproduce is all based on free will now, and not based on who will make stronger babies more apt to survival. Sure, some of attraction is based on that factor, but as we're discussing homosexuality, it seems silly to use that argument much, doesn't it?

[BizzaroStormy]

You really cannot attribute homosexuality to being based on ones genetics or environment exclusively. One possibility would be a hormone imbalance pushing males towards estrogen and vice-versa. However, that alone wont make anyone homosexual. The environment one grows up in is definately a factor.
Another factor seems to be a child growing up with a single parent of the opposite sex.

Pretty much im saying that people can go either way (Not a bisexuality joke.) But it is not set in stone from birth. I wont get into the moral dilemma of it but if you raise a boy as a girl then he'll act like a girl, regardless of what his body tells him. The same can be said the other way.


Probably not.
I don't think (or have come across any scientific evidence) that homosexuality is purely genetic (or determined by genetics at all), so no, it won't die out just because you can't produce offspring in same-gender relationships.

You're forgetting artificial insemniation(sp?) and surrogate mothers, both of which still allow couples to have a child, just not completely natural.


Also; how for the love of Ghandi has this thread gone for so long without being locked? Anyone wanna place bets?

Somebody probably hid Roland's "Lock Topic" button, that or we're keeping the discussion mature and keeping away from the political and religious aspects of it so it isnt a problem.

Disclaimer:I sincerely apologize for anyone offended by this post, I dont usually speak on this topic due to the immaturity of posters on other boards

[The Extinguisher]

Humans aren't evolving anymore, sentience tends to shoot natural selection in the knee; the line will go on, by one means or another!


I hate when people say this.

Evolution occurs over many, many generations people. Of course it doesn't look like we're evolving. Have you ever been able to observe hundreds of generations of human procreation.

Anyway, as been said, I doubt there'd be a Homosexual allele and a Heterosexual allele. If anything, they'd have to have incomplete dominance to each other and we'd see a lot more Bisexual people than we do now.

[xPANCAKEx]

there was a brilliant documentry with scott capurro a few years back about gay animals - track it down if you can

A US Government department of aggriculture funded scientific study into why certain rams wern't rutting showed that even in environments where they have an equal choice between male and female partners (from a selection of 10 or 12 potential mates i think?) they chose same sex everytime. They disected certain rams and found out that the brain structure was different. Turns out its not really genetic, nor nutured behavior - just part of the brain developing differently. It was completely naturally occuring. And all of that was found through US government funding.

[Collin152]

I hate when people say this.

Evolution occurs over many, many generations people. Of course it doesn't look like we're evolving. Have you ever been able to observe hundreds of generations of human procreation.


I hate how that doesn't really apply to my arguments.

But let me rephrase: Humanity isn't evolving in any kind of way that isn't going to kill us off as a species.
If we let all these debilitating genetics live on, pass down, we'll end up with masses of persons in the future generations with crippling genetic disorders we can't help them with.

Now, I'm not by any means proposing anything the Nazis tried to do (Godwin's law: Fulfilled), merley foretelling the doom of humanity.

And now that Nazi Germany has been mentioned, this thread is primed for lockage.

[Assassin89]

*stabs thread*
I do not think this is an appropriate topic for the forum.
Anyway, homosexuality might not be genetic, as it might just be an instinct for creating a group.
*stabs thread again*

[The Giant]

Someone please lock this thread now.

The Voice of Mod: Yup. While this thread is not strictly a violation, it skirts the edge of both political issues and orientation issues (since not everyone agrees on whether or not it IS purely genetic). And probably a potential for religious issues, too.

No one is getting warned or anything, you've all been very civil and on-topic, but this is just a little too flame-bait-tastic for these parts. Add in a number of posters specifically indicating that they would like the topic closed before it turns into a flame-fest, and I'm happy to oblige.