If homosexuality is genetic, why do they exist and increase in number?

Question

We live in an age where homosexuality is a controversial topic. Most say that it is a genetic factor, and there is probably laboratory evidence. Since they, for the most part, don't reproduce, how can the trait be carried down? I know some do reproduce, but not enough for an increasing percentage. I know there are dominant and recessive traits, but it makes no sense that this trait was developed or is still able to exist. Can anyone give me a good reason why the percentage of homosexuals continues to increase?

Answer 1

We're increasing so that we can eventually take over the world. The gay men and gay women will procreate to make more GAY MEN & WOMEN!

Answer 2

First, your answer assumes that homosexuality is on the increase. It could be that you are perceiving that it more people are homosexuals than ever before. It is true that a larger number of homosexuals are more public about their sexuality - perhaps that is the reason for your perception.

Second, many homosexuals have children. I know several that married, had kids, and later determined their sexual orientation. Given that homosexuality has been historically condemned, it is likely that many homosexuals attempted to live a heterosexual lifestyle, married and had children, continuing their genes in the gene pool. If fact, in many cultures, marriages were arranged, so the participants would have been forced to live in a heterosexual relationship. Throughout much of history, married women didn't have much control over their sex lives, so homosexual women in arranged heterosexual marriages, even if not desiring their husband, where probably forced to have sex even when unwilling.

Third, the population overall is increasing, so the absolute number of homosexuals, even as a fixed percentage of the population, would rise.

Fourth, compare homosexuality to a fatal genetic defect like cycstic fibrosis. The current life expectancy for those with CF is 35, up quite a bit from earlier this century. Only 40% of those with CF are over 18, however. So how come CF hasn't died out when people with CF die young? Well, because CF is a recessive gene. Not everyone with the CF gene dies of it, most are simply carriers, with the dominant gene "beating" the recessive. It is only when you have two recessives that you have CF. So it is possible for CF to stay in the gene pool.

Here's another analogy: Sickle cell anemia. If you have a dominant/recessive combination, the result is a person who is resistant to malaria. Thus it is a beneficial mutation. However, when you have recessive/recessive, you have sickle cell anemia. So for those with the recessive/recessive combination, it is a detrimental combination for passing on your genes. I'm just supposing here, but it could be that a dominant/recessive combination for the hetero/homosexual genes is somehow beneficial. Don't know, never seen any research on it, but just throwing that out there as an idea.

Answer 3

"We live in an age where homosexuality is a controversial topic."

Homosexuality is more accepted today than it ever was in recent history.

"I know some do reproduce, but not enough for an increasing percentage."

Where do you get your data that an increasing percentage of people are homosexuals? I suspect you percieve this because we live in a very media oriented world now. Prior to the 1970's and the '1980's you just didn't hear as much about them. I'm not saying it isn't true, but I won't accept this hypothesis without some actual data.

Some studies indicate that their is a genetic component to homosexuality, but the presence of a gene in an individual does not guarantee that it will express. For example, consider recessive genetic disorders. The symptoms of a recessive genetic condition are not realized unless the individual has 2 copies of the "abnormal" gene. An individual with only one copy of the "abmormal" gene and a dominate "normal" copy of the gene are called carriers. This is how many genetic diseases such as sickle cell anemia, and Tay-sachs disease endure. Carriers can reproduce with non-carriers and they produce more carriers. Only when two carriers mate is there a chance that the offspring will express the recessive trait.

I am not saying that homosexuality is a disease, but if it is caused by a single gene, that gene is certainly recessive. I doubt that it is caused by a single gene. I suspect the genetic component is caused by many different genes like skin color.

Answer 4

Well, for one thing, there is no good evidence that homosexuality is on the increase. And the "genetic" theory is still just a theory.

The most logical explanation I have heard for the reason that a possible "homosexuality gene" might be preserved through natural selection, even if homosexuals never had offspring (which is not the case), is that unmarried homosexuals may be more likely to stick around and help raise their siblings. If that gave their siblings a slight survival advantage, then the genetics of homosexuals would be preserved when their siblings reproduced. A good place to read about this is in Adams Curse by Bryan Sikes.

But it is still just speculation and theory.

Answer 5

I once read and I also saw an episode of 60 minutes that supported the idea that the more sons a woman has the younger sons are more likely to be gay. Studies a few times over have supported this claim.

There was A LOT more to the study that I'm not going to try to explain - I don't want to say anything wrong. But the study basically suggests that antibodies in the mother's body start to attack the foreign body because it is male. For some reason it doesn't happen to females though because the woman's body recognize its own gender.

It also suggests that mutating genes during pregnancy might cause a child to be homosexual --- or something to that tune. It was fascinating!

Answer 6

There is no support for the thesis that homosexuality itself is genetic.

There is significant evidence that homosexuality clusters in family groups, but without any evidence of there being any clear pattern of inheritance, like eye color or blood type show.

There is ALSO some question as to whether the number of homosexuals is on the increase, or whether it's a case of more homosexuals are admitting to being homosexual. It is absolutely clear that more homosexuals are admitting, indeed parading, their lifestyle. If there is an increase in homosexuality, it is probably due to simple forces, such as the increased tolerance of society toward the lifestyle choice increasing the potential of recruitment of others into the lifestyle.

Basically, the best analysis I have seen indicates that the propensity to have sufficiently ambiguous sexual identification to make the segue into a homosexual, rather than a heterosexual, lifestyle is polygenetic, but no single gene or group of genes guarantees that an individual will be homosexual--just that they are at increased risk of same. It also requires appropriate environmental inputs at critical periods in the development of sexual identity, those inputs being rather widely varied. There are other, subtle issues that need to be there, but their discussion is hardly politically correct and they're not yet as well supported by data...

Homosexuality itself isn't actually controversial, you know. It is how homosexuality should be viewed by society (the two poles are "alternate lifestyle" and "perversion" with lots of things in between); what rights they should be accorded before the law and the rest of society (ranging from punishment and ostracism, which is what happened in the past, to their current demands of protection and virtually reward); and whether or not they should be allowed to marry; these are the things that are controversial, not homosexuality itself. To say that homosexuality is actually controversial is to confuse the real point...

Face it, in Ancient Greece, bisexual behavior among warriors was commonplace and encouraged: if you were fighting next to a lover, they expected you to fight harder. (No evidence that it worked, by the way). Conversely, in England in WWII, it was illegal to be homosexual, and they actually put men on estrogens to try to suppress their homosexuality...

BF Skinner, of course, would have claimed (perhaps rightly) that no matter what the genes said, he could condition someone to homosexual or heterosexual behavior...

Longwinded--but the topic deserves a broader and thus somewhat windier answer

Answer 7

Yes, this is a very controversial questions. Like anything in this world, there are exceptions to nature's rule. So, in any society, we can expect that statistically speaking there will be a certain amount of people who develop some form of sexual preferences based on many factors, and perhaps genetics may bear some responsibility for such behaviour. However, many behaviour patterns do develop insidiously as well. There is no definite answer to your question because there are too many variables to consider. Lets hope this is an exception rather than the rule or the human race will be doomed.

Answer 8

Homosexuality is genetic. It's a genetic anomaly - it isn't dominant or recessive, or passed down. It happens from time to time. Also, the percent of the population that identifies as homosexual isn't increasing. Arguably between 6-10% of the population is homosexual, and the reason for this is still being debated. One theory is to provide extra caregivers for children - those without offspring aid other adults in raising their young. This phenomenon is evident in other species.

Back to your question - why does it appear that the number of homosexual individuals in society is increasing? Mostly because society is slowly becoming more accepting of non-heterosexual relationships, and therefore people are becoming more open. If society were critical of your heterosexuality, and by admitting it you could lose friends, your job... would you tell people?

Answer 9

Homosexuals don't necessarily carry the gene. It's passed on to them.
Much like baldness. Women pass the gene on to their sons, but that doesn't mean the women are bald. Their daughters will also pass the bald gene to their male children.

Sickle cell is the same except that both parents carry the recessive gene - their child isn't a carrier, their child is a sufferer (so to speak).

The percentage of gays hasn't increased, just the number "coming out of the closets,"

Answer 10

Actually, the fact that it continues to happen is evidence AGAINST it being directly genetic, for the very reasons you cite. It is not a survival trait for the genes. Those people who argue for it being genetic are proceeding from political premises, not scientific ones.

Answer 11

Um, I don't know if it has increased, prolly just more of them admitting it, I'm not gay (Damn, I'm not even happy) but, I don't understand them, it perplexes the "Straight world" for sure. I don't hate them, I certainly wouldn't do anything to harm one, nor do I condone anyone that does, as I hope that they would not harm me. To each his own I guess, the bazaar behavior of Homosexuals certainly does amuse me though, I mean it really cracks me up, I just don't want to hear about their "Fun" but, the surrounding circumstances, and the way they go about getting around their unique problems really cracks me up, Some of them are really nice people as well, always willing to help, when I was younger I really disliked them for being homosexuals, now I look beyond that !