If homosexuality is natural and genetic, and since homosexuals don't breed, why hasn't it died out long ago?

Question

Of course, homosexuals do have children, but at a greatly reduced ratio compared to heterosexuals. Doesn't the theory of natural selection suggest that over time the trait, if genetic, would disappear?

Answer 1

The mentally retarded aren't known for having babies. Why are they still around? Maybe it has something to do with recessive alleles. Don't gay people have siblings that have children?

Answer 2

According to most researchers, determination of an individual's sexual orientation is partly genetic, but it's more complex than simply a Mendelian set of 2 genes eventually being bred out.

At least one researcher has theorized that male homosexuality is the product of early hormonal attempts by the mother's mitochondrial XX DNA to "neuter" the XY male, because even the XX mDNA has a survival instinct and desires to produce more copies of itself if at all possible. This researcher theorized that if the XY male were "neutered" then that male would be more likely to assist in caring for the surviving XX offspring of the mother, thereby giving an optimal survival advantage to the XX offspring which would pass on at least one of the mother's XX genes...whereas with the XY male, the XX mother could not be assured that the X chromosome would be passed on (if the male sired another male he only passes on the Y chromosome and the X chromosome dies out).

There are other instances of evolutionarily maladaptive traits which continue to survive despite their disadvantages, such as sickle cell anemia. One would think that sickle cell anemia would have been bred out of the human population over time, but it hasn't. It does have a survival advantage in that it confers some resistance to malaria, so that may be why it has persisted.

Similarly, there may be some evolutionary advantage to retaining a genetic basis for homosexuality. Just because we don't know for sure doesn't mean there isn't one.

Answer 3

No, it doesn't suggest that at all.

By your logic, the only bees found in a hive should be the queen and the drones. The workers never reproduce, yet in reality they make up the vast majority of the hive.

Also, there are all sorts of recessive genes in the population that cause no problems for people with one copy of them, but which can cause fatal diseases and other reproduction inhibiting traits when the recessive gene is inherited from both parents. Natural selection does not drive these recessive genes from the population.

...

Note, I'm not saying that homosexuality is genetic (that isn't really what you asked about), just that natural selection doesn't work the way you think it does.

Answer 4

No, it doesn't. The trait seems to occur predominantly in social mammals. Thus, you have a social community with similiar genetics where even if one individual does not breed, many of his genes are shared with the group as a whole, so by sacrificing his own reproductive capacity, and thus conserving energy and health instead of fighting a dominant male for breeding rights, the individual can devote that energy to carring for orphaned offspring or nephews and nieces. As such, small amounts of homosexuality become evolutionarily advantageous within social communities.

Answer 5

No.

While it is true that particular genetic patterns increase the likelihood that a person will be homo, rather than heterosexual, there is no one on one correspondence.

A younger brother is more likely to be gay than his older brother, although their chances of carrying gay predisposing genes is equal.

Natural selection chooses genetic elements, not orientation. Gay predisposing genes persist because they carry an overall survival advantage (that is are likely to be represented in subsequent generations), even if particular individuals carrying that pattern might be less likely to reproduce.

While a gay man might be less likely, himself, to reproduce, other relatives who carry similar genes such as older brothers or female relatives may actually be advantaged.

See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kin_selection for a better explanation of the principle.

Answer 6

Homosexual behavior's function is not that of procreation. If it were, maybe an increase in homosexual activity is an indicator of nature resetting the balance due to overpopulation. However, I do not believe that is the case. It is a natural behavior, as we have many examples of homosexuality in the animal world. Therefore it's function must lie outside of mere procreation.

Answer 7

actually alot of research is showing great imperical evidence that it is biological. Infact the evidence is showing a relation to improper hormones being released to the fetus during pregnancy. THings like stress and hyperactivity release unnatural levels of testosteron and estrogen which has been shown in mice to develop parts of there brain almost identical to the oposite sex.

So its not genetical as much as it is biological.

Answer 8

Or, could it just be true that what has been suggested as far back as Kinsey, that most men, at least, are bisexual?
After all, we are preached over and over that homosexuality is a choice. That means that all men and women are inheriting the gay gene but must prevent themselves from indulging.

Answer 9

You just answered your own question. It's "natural and genetic." You carry the genes of people in your family for generations back. Parents don't always have just one gay child. They usually have numerous children and one will turn out gay. That leaves every other child to carry on that possibility that one day their child may be gay.

Answer 10

Theory may say it would disappear but God doesn't. He is the same yesterday, today and forever more. It has not died because satan is not dead and he is it's author. Homosexuals do not have children, they obtain them. That is the difference, to name one. May God Bless U.

Answer 11

When you call them sinners, it forces them underground and into hetero relationships (and from there they breed). But that's just a guess. It's really hard to do any decent scientific research on the topic when it's the one segment of society that it's still pretty much accepted to make fun of (just ask Ann Coulter).