Will gay liberation be the unintentional victim of its own success?

Question

The following assumes that homosexuality is genetically inherited.

Until the 20th century the "gay" gene would have been reproduced from generation to generation through gay individuals having culturally enforced heterosexual sex and producing offspring.

Now that homosexuality is culturally accepted, and gay individuals can have open (but not sexually reproductive) relationships with each other, the vehicle for passing on the gene will be drastically compromised (ie. no more gay offspring from reproductive sex).

I'm not an anthropologist or geneticist, but doesn't this mean the end of the gay gene?
(I accept that it could get complicated if the gene is carried ,say ,on the female side like haemophilia)

Answer 1

The idea that a single gene "makes" one gay is simplistic at best. A gene codes for a single protein. When this protein is expressed is based on environmental factors. A complex behavior like sexuality relies on a complex mix of proteins, and any genetic basis to sexual selection is the result of the interactions of these proteins. In other words, it would have to be many genes working in concert.

This model works well with Alfred Kinsey's research on human sexuality, which presented straight and gay as a spectrum, not an either-or. The rarest individuals are those who have zero straight or zero gay tendencies. Because of our cultural conditioning, we automatically categorize people as one or the other, when the reality is much more complex.

Before anyone gets upset at this answer, look up bonobos. The bonobo is a primate as closely related to us as the chimpanzee, and used to be called a pygmy chimpanzee. However, it exhibits a wider range of sexual behavior than humans do, and generally does so an average of once an hour. There is nothing more unnatural about these tendencies than the genocidal behavior of chimpanzees.

Do I think that nonreproductive sex on the part of gay couples spells the end of the gay "gene"? No, because I don't think it is anything more than an expression of the tremendous behavior exhibited by humans in general. Remove the elements that take away gay tendencies, and you will remove or alter much of our heterosexual tendencies as well. I think that as long as human women have hidden fertility, we will probably have "gay genes". It is part and parcel of what makes us human and capable of just about anything.

Answer 2

Assuming there is a genetic element, by no means all people with that genetic element will become homosexuals. Even discounting the influence of the environment (and that's a big thing to discount), and assuming it's simple Mendelian inheritance (it's not, I'm sure) you still couldn't eliminate the 'gay' gene. Since straight people produce gay children, the hypothetical 'gay' gene can't be dominant, meaning that you would always have heterozygotic straight carriers.

In fact, the 'gay' gene could even have a positive effect on selection if there's a case of heterozygote advantage going on, or if having gay siblings enhances your own reproductive success.

OK, that was something of a long answer to your question, the short answer is simply no!

Answer 3

The fallacy in your reasoning is that you seem to think only a gay could produce a gay. "Genetics" doesn't mean that children are clones of their parents. It doesn't work that way. It's not that simple.

Two straight people can produce a gay child, intentionally or not.

Answer 4

being gay is still not being accepted i kno cause i have a gay friend i think in about 10 years there will be more gays but i think that with everything there will still be a population of rasists against gays

Answer 5

Population control. It'll make up for the advancements in medicine.

Answer 6

Assuming it was genetic that would be true. But theres no proof of that.

Answer 7

How can it be purely genetic, if it was they would have died out as they would not breed?

Answer 8

I hope so, because I am tired of hearing about it.