Is it true that the origin of homosexuality cannot be genetic, because homosexuals do not procreate?

Question

Since both male and female homosexuals do not procreate, they are not able to pass on genes that would ensure their survival. This would also mean that any mutation that would incline an individual genetically to homosexuality would not be passed on; and the chances of mass numbers of mutations occurring during one period of time are impossible. The only conclusion that one can draw from this is that homosexuality is sociologically and psychologically determined - do you agree?
Thank you for your help.
Joe Conrad

Answer 1

The brain is an adaptive organ, it is altered by behavior and experience. Homosexuality is behavior, and it is behaviorally and environmentally conditioned. Of course it is kind of a mixed up in the common perception because nobody whats to take responsibility or place blame or stigmatize behavior. Nice of them but it has lead to all kinds of sloppy science.

Answer 2

No, although I can understand your reasoning, it is incorrect. There is no evidence that children of homosexuals tend to be homosexual. And, the vast majority of homosexuals have heterosexual parents. What you are dealing with is something that is biological but is not a gene that you could simply eliminate from the population.

Okay, let me give you an analogy. You've probably heard that occasionally a developing embryo will not respond to testosterone and therefore even though the chromosomes are XY the baby will appear to be female. This baby will not be fertile and therefore unable to reproduce. So, by your reasoning this trait should decline and disappear from the gene pool. It hasn't.

The problem with homosexuality is quite similar. We come in two sexes and if everything goes right each sex has an attraction to the opposite and a desire for sex. However, just as can happen with babies who are male but appear to be female sometimes this process gets crossed. The result is a male who has the same sexual desire as a female or a female who has the same sexual desire as a male. There are specific physical traits that show that this is biological. Women who are lesbian have a hand characteristic that is not like that of a heterosexual woman but is like a man's. Homosexual men show a brain area that is unlike heterosexual men but rather like a woman's.

Homosexuality is not determined by society or psychology. It is very easy to test for. Homosexual men get aroused looking at pictures of naked men; heterosexual men do not. In fact, there have been cases of people who were pushed very hard to be heterosexual and ultimately could not be. In modern society the pressure is overwhelmingly in favor of being heterosexual. To suggest that society somehow influences someone to be homosexual is a bit off. I had a girlfriend when I was in kindergarten. I also had fantasies about my aunt when I was only 7 years old. It wasn't something I had to learn or something I chose. It's just the way I was and the way I am. For true homosexuals, it is the same way.

Answer 3

Genetics is not my field -- however, Jonathan is trained as a bio-chemical engineer -- though he does not work in that field -- so let me try to give an explanation as I understand it.

Number one -- Many genes are carried on the X but effect males exclusively, or differently. A study out of Italy strongly suggests that women who carry the same gene subset that is thought by some scientists to be responsible for a portion of homosexuality in males are themselves heterosexual, and both more fertile and more sexually excitable than straight women without that genetic subset. That may well contribute some of the survivability.

Other considerations include

recombinant -- which I don't understand at all -- but indicate that everyone carries certain genes leading to homosexuality, when those genes are combined in a certain way, the child is homosexual, otherwise the genes might as well not be there.

penetrance -- genes don't have 100% penetrance, and the level of genetic penetrance matters. So, as I understand it, a person could have a dominant gene for homosexuality, and if it only expresses itself with a penetrance of 50 -- then 50% of the children would be straight. Given that nearly every family has some homosexual members, my guess is, given other contributing factors, that genetic penetrance of homosexuality is only a few percentage points -- and that many people carry the gene.

Those only scratch the surface. The idea however that anything you said leads to the "only conclusion that one can draw from this is that homosexuality is sociologically and psychologically determined" is prima facie false.

Firstly, many, many animal species have homosexual, including exclusive homosexual behavior and homosexual pair-bonding. (See Dr. Bruce Bagemihl's book "Biological Exuberance" from St. Martin's Press if you want details). I daresay that the sociology and psychology of animals do not lead to sexual conditioning. Likewise, the fruit-fly study pretty conclusively proves that it is 100% genetic in fruit-flies, so even if it is more complicated (which it certainly is), why would it be non-genetic in humans?

Secondly, if having homosexual males in a populace benefits the populace, evolution would find a method of keeping homosexual males in said populace. Historically many primitive tribes used gay men not only as the spiritual leaders, but also as intermediate nurturers. The majority of the boys in the tribe were growing up to be warriors -- in a fair number of early societies, including quite a few American Indian ones, history tells us that when those boys got too old to be with the women, but not old enough to be with the war bands, they were given over to the care of gay men -- who had a specific and accepted place in the tribe.

Far before such things developed, it is probable that having a male in the family who partnered with another male and had no children of his own, thus providing a secondary protection for the children of his female relatives in case they and their male mates died -- someone who would nurture and care for the children and see them to adulthood -- was advantageous -- and thus the trait was preserved.

Regards,

Reynolds
http://www.rebuff.org
[e-mail]

Answer 4

Not true.

First, it's not true that homosexuals do not procreate. Many of them do. In ancient Greece, for example, men had other men for pleasure and women for children. Many homosexuals today (of both genders) have been married at one time or another.

But you do have a point in that we should expect homosexuals to reproduce less often than heterosexuals, and therefore, all other things being equal, if genetic, the gene(s) should eventually remove themselves from the gene pool.

Therefore, there must be something that makes all other things not equal. The most likely possibility is that heterozygous heterosexuals (those who carry a hypothetical recessive gene for homosexuality -- and who may or may not be bisexual) are statistically more likely to reproduce than homozygous heterosexuals. Perhaps they reach sexual maturity sooner, or perhaps there are phenotype traits that make them more attractive to the opposite sex.

Another possibility is that homozygous heterosexuals tend to die younger for some reason than heterozygous heterosexuals. Perhaps they are more likely to be risk-takers, for example.

So there are a number of factors that could, in theory, allow the gene(s) for homosexuality to remain in the gene pool. BTW, any sheep farmer will tell you that about 8% of rams are homosexual ... so it's doubtful that sociology has much to do with it ...

Answer 5

No. That is not genetic does not make it sociological on psychological, as there is another issue: environment. Take those people who were born with limbs missing because of thalidomid, or mentally retarded because the mother had rubella, or affected by other chemical compound. It is not in their genes, it is in the presence of some disruptive agent before they were born.

A recent study has revealed that the more older brothers one has, the more likely one is to be homosexual, leading to believe that some anti-bodies produced by the pregnant mother attacks the embryo in some way, and more so the more the mother was exposed to male fetuses before. No correlation was found for homosexual women yet, however, so the jury is still out.

Answer 6

Procreation is a persevering with rule definite. besides the undeniable fact that, even mom Nature places barriers on breeding to a element. Take the whitetail deer. If too a lot of them breed with out being killed via hunters in some variety (people, wolves, undergo) than the inhabitants as an entire will ultimately be afflicted by starvation and affliction with the aid of shortcoming of the earth to maintain all of them. I view homosexuality as a welcome (and organic) exchange interior the human ought to overpopulate and ravage it is host (the earth). Homosexuality finally ends up in much less unintentional births which in turn finally ends up in much less of an overpopulation subject. i'm no longer gay yet i decide for to no longer breed on the inspiration that there are already too many toddlers who decide for good mothers and fathers. If extra (no longer all) heterosexual couples might make this decision we are in a position to make this a extra clever planet to outlive for the generations to return. Homosexuality is a bonus to a species in this way. It facilitates to avert obtainable affected by overpopulation to the individuals of the subsequent era that should have existed (and could exist in smaller numbers) if homosexuality did no longer exist.

Answer 7

Nope. I don't agree at all. I know LOTS of homos with kids. Yes, biological ones -- and not only that, their kids grew up to be STRAIGHT. Horrors, I know.

Homosexuality is most likely a genetic property, a recessive one perhaps, but one no less. You'll never find a common element amongst homosexuals in their societal or psychological backgrounds -- internally its a far too diverse group to simply wave it off as a whole bunch of guys who were close to mommy.

I'm inclined to believe however, given your phrasing on this question and your followup, that this is precisely NOT what you want to hear and will believe whatever Pat Robertson tells you.

Answer 8

Since all carbon base life forms reproduce genetically, it is difficult to eliminate it as a possibility. If were were going to say it was hormones, that could still be linked to genetic structure. I doubt that there is a magic bullet that one could point to in homosexuality. It exist. It is does not meet the statistical norm. The concept is quite foreign to heterosexuals. The fact that a heterosexual finds it repulsive does not effect the cause or existence of homosexuality.

Answer 9

didn't you see brokeback mountain? together they had like 4 kids!
you are assuming that a homosexuality gene is:
1. dominant (if recessive, you need two copies to have a phenotype. if you just have one copy, you're just a carrier)
2. involves just a single gene instead of being something that is complex.
instead of this sort of speculation, try reading some scientific papers to prove a point. there is a gene called "fruitless" in fruit flies that when mutant, causes male fruit flies to try and have sex with other male flies. there's probably some other interesting articles (try looking on lexusnexus) but really who cares! people are people and we're all the same.

Answer 10

Some insects like ants and bees, only have a few individuals who have offspring. The other ants and bees work to make shore that their closest relatives survives and passes along their genes.

If you are gay and you help your brother or sister to have many surviving children, then the family gayness will be passed along as well. Survival of the fittest doesn't necessarily means the fittest individuals, it can mean the fittest group.

Answer 11

No, there are "gay" animals in every corner of nature - yes, it occurs throughout nature. Because of that, I truly don't believe it is sociological and/or psychological. Also, take for instance the fact that the brain of a gay man is said to be almost identical to that of a woman (when it dissected and analyzed upon death). You know how some people are born attracted to the opposite sex, without any prodding, well I think that's exactly how it is for someone who is Gay or Lesbian. They are just attracted to the same sex. Wow, brain surgery the way I say it huh? lol, sorry I just can't think of any other way to put it. Peace :)