Will the Gay gene be eliminated? Read on?

Question

So, if homosexuality really is a genetic trait then let's consider this. Our generation is really the first generation to really accept homosexuals as real people. Before now, regardless of your sexual orientation, you had kids and got married. So that means gay men and women have been breeding for centuries passing along the gay gene. However, since homosexuals can now adopt, and artificial insemination can be costly and not fool proof, does this mean that the homosexual population will dwindle? Thoughts?

Just to throw this out there, I'm not saying that the gay gene in fact exists, and I'm certainly NOT against homosexuality... My boyfriend and I are looking forward to celebrating Valentines! <3

Answer 1

While there's almost certainly no single "gay gene", there are almost certainly genotypes that make a homosexual orientation more likely.

However, carrying that geneotype does not necessarily result in a homosexual phenotype: other factors are almost certainly at play. One of these is birth order: younger brothers are more likely to be gay than older brothers carrying that same genotype: this is a biological rather than social effect.

It may be that natural selection has favoured the gay-predisposing genotype because it reduces reproductively costly competition between genetically similar males, which could potentially optimise the frequency of the allele in the next generation. The genotype persists through generations, passed on through the heterosexual older brother who can spend more energy on reproducing than fighting with the younger brothers for female mates. Kin selection proposes that the gay brother will favour his nephews and neices (who carry as great a percentage of his genes as his own grandchildren would) in nurturing and protection, enhancing this effect. There are other theories of how male homosexual genotypes can be passed through female lines, and can have a survival advantage for the carriers.

Remember, in natural selection it's not individuals that are successful in the long run, it's genotypes.

Answer 2

Well, in theory the 'gay gene' would become extinct, because gay couples would adopt straight children. But, now you have to worry about the nurture aspect, also. This is where the gay children to straight parents would come into play, where when the child develops odepus complex (which is pretty inevitable), it is on the father for the boy and mother for the girl. Thus, the 'gay gene' is exterminated, but there are still children who are being raised gay, albeit unknowingly.

Also, artificial insemination is not foold proof, but i'm sure that if the couple were set on having a child, they would try and try again without a monetary limit. Then, there would still be one 'gay gene' and one 'straight gene', as has been existent for eternity.

In conclusion, in theory: 'gay gene' would die off, but nurtured homosexuality would be around forever.

ps:great question.

Answer 3

Huh? It's straight men and women who do the breeding and produce gay children. And it hasn't been established that there is in fact a "gay gene" that is the sole reason that people are gay.

In short, no, the homosexual population will not dwindle, it will simply become more visible.

(And "your" generation still has a long way to go toward accepting homosexuals as "real" people.)

Answer 4

There are two explanations.

It controls the human population...while only to a relatively small percent and evidence of more men identifying as homosexual or bisexual than women support this theory. By making this trait unalterable, it confers a reproductive advantage to the entire human race. The competition for mates on both sides is slightly reduced and remains at a constant.

Another theory is that it is actually independent of genetics but rather caused by the mother during the prenatal environment. The amount of hormones that infant is exposed to is hindered by the mother's immune system, therefore the brain structures responsible for sexual attraction are altered towards attraction of the same sex. This is controversial because it's essentially the mother's fault and holds no explanation of nature. This also indicates that the development of homosexuality was not supposed to happen, but rather occurred by default. And this makes sense, because mother's who are stressed and needy tend to have homosexual children whom they cling to...so it could provide an advantage to mothers in addition to population control.

Answer 5

No.
Ever hear of a recessive trait?
That's how a child with blue eyes is born to brown eyed parents.

The idea is that everybody carries the genetic possibility of being homosexual but not until a certain event or set of circumstances occurs does the gene "activate" and the person "become" homosexual. Those events could be related to stress on the mother during pregnancy, the number of births a mother has had, or any of a thousand other environmental factors.


Genetics is a tricky thing. There have been instances of children with African features(dark skin and hair) being born to a Caucasian couple who didn't know that they both had African ancestors in their past. There are red-haired children born in my family when the greatest majority of my ancestors had brown hair.
I seriously doubt that homosexuality will "die out" with the acceptance of the lifestyle.

Answer 6

im gonna say no because i mean just because we except them now doesnt mean like all people accept them. I mean a kid from my school just hung himself because he wasnt accepted for being gay. I know we do accept them more but, there are still men and woman out there who wont want to accept the fact that they are gay because they are afraid of what society will think. And there are many out there. So the gay/lesbian population might dwindle a little but there will still be many out there. Wow i just changed my answer in the middle of all this and by rereading your question. Ok then yes it will dwindle. But i had to look at both sides.

Answer 7

No, your premise is false, since it presupposes that the so-called 'gay gene' is a single gene.

This is doubtful and it's more likely that a variety of genetic combinations in humans always reuslt in gay children.

And those various genes also have other functions, so you couldn't get rid of the genes which can cause gayness without producing some two-headed babies, and who would want that?

Furthermore, it's thought that one gene which makes some gay boys gays, also serves to make straight boys more fertile and more mongamous.

Consequently, the faithful hetero brothers of childless gay boys are passing along the 'gay gene' whether gay men are having children, or not.

Good try, but no banana.

Answer 8

if homosexuality is genetic, then it is not a simple dominant/recessive gene situation. sexual orientation is a spectrum, indicative of control by multiple genes. this means that any number of people can carry many of these genes and still not express same-sex attraction, much less same-sex behavior. not to mention people like their kids to be related to them, so i doubt they'd stop trying artificial means. also, it's a lot easier for lesbians to use artificial insemination than to adopt. less paperwork.

Answer 9

I don't think so. If in fact there is a gene that makes people gay, it will still be passed along. Because for as many people who have come out of the closet, there is still that many people who are afraid to be who they are, will live behind a mask of heterosexuality and have children. And they will then pass it on to their children.

Answer 10

some might try to screen for a 'gay' gene, but many won't and most doctors will see this as unethical- maybe the medical board can make a judgment call on this one. and legally a doctor could prolong the time to screen until its too late for an abortion- its underhanded but if it can't be proven that they hindered in what time they did the test, they get away with it.