Theory of Evolution and homosexuality?

Question

I say they choose to be gay, because I've heard they claim they were born gay. If this is the case, that means there is a defective gene floating around in the gene pool of the human species. That being said, evolution says that defective genes are the cause of evolution, being that they evolve to something new. If gays were REALLY born gay, according to the Theory of Evolution, they'd be able to reproduce... wouldn't they?? Or they'd become a different species, but I haven't seen that happen yet, and homosexuality has been around since ancient Roman times supposedly... And since they don't copulate with those of the opposite gender, they don't reproduce, thus this defective gene isn't passed on.

Sorry.. but all evidence points to chosen lifestyle, not defective genetics.

So what are your thoughts, and additions, or rebuttals to my theory?

Mind you, I'm not homophobic, and I'm not bringing this up to "gay bash", I just want to know what others think.

Answer 1

A rebuttal:

A California psychologist has found the level of male hormones a fetus is exposed to in the womb can influence future sexual orientation. The study, published in this week's journal Nature, is based an unusual research technique -- comparing the lengths of a person's index and ring fingers.

Marc Breedlove, a professor of psychology at University of California Berkeley, said that finger length is influenced by levels of male hormone, or androgen, in the womb. Thus, he used the finger comparisons as an approximate measure of fetal androgen levels.

In most people, the index finger is slightly shorter than the ring finger. But in the right hand, the difference is accentuated by higher levels of androgens during fetal development, according to the study. In women, the ring and the index finger tend to be almost the same size. In men, the index finger is usually shorter.

In his study of 720 people, Breedlove found higher levels of androgens can create a greater than normal tendency for both males and females to develop a homosexual orientation.

Breedlove found lesbians tended to have a more masculine hand pattern, with the index finger considerably shorter than the ring finger, when compared to heterosexual women as a group.

But he cautions, "There is no gene that forces a person to be straight or gay... I believe there are many social and psychological, as well as biological factors that make up sexual preference."

Breedlove says what his data does show is that some people are gay because of fetal androgen levels.

"We think that lesbians, as a group, were seeing slightly higher prenatal testosterone levels than were the heterosexual women," Breedlove said.

He said the pattern for men was more complicated. There did not appear to be a direct relationship between finger length and sexual orientation. Still, Breedlove found some gay men did appear, based on finger measurements, to have been exposed to higher levels of fetal androgens.

"This calls into question all of our cultural assumptions that gay men are feminine," said Breedlove. He says his findings point more toward gay men as hypermasculinized.

Breedlove conducted his research at three street fairs in the San Francisco Bay area in the fall of 1999. Each study participant had his or her hand photocopied on a portable copy machine to record finger length. Participants also filled out a questionnaire on sexual orientation and birth order.

Neuroscientist Simon Levay says Breedlove's work confirms his own views on the causes of homosexuality.

"I think it is one more contribution if you like to the idea that our personalities including our sexuality and our sexual orientation are influenced by things that happen when our brain first assembles itself before birth," Levay said.

But University of California Davis psychologist Gregory Herick says using finger ratios as a biological explanation for lesbianism is an over simplification.

"We're going to find there are many different ways people become heterosexual, homosexual or bisexual as an adult," Herick said. "I think one of the problems with interpreting findings of this sort, people have a tendency to say, 'Here's the answer. Now we know.' And they're eventually proven wrong."

Answer 2

Yes, you are very wrong. I bet you wont even read my reply as to why. Thats the problem. Evolution IS a fact. A theory is the hows, whens, and whys. A theory doesn't suggest that something is not fact. Gravity is a fact, but also a theory. The same with evolution. Edit: Let me explain this more. You are on a computer right now. You know that electricity is powering your computer, correct? You know that to be fact. However, HOW the electricity is powering your computer is a THEORY. Do you see now? Global warming - this is a case that we would rather be safe than sorry. The people not even bothering to help the cause are potentially dooming future generations - right or wrong, stop being so stubborn and help, just incase. Homosexuality is more about human rights, morality, and a persons feelings. Believe that being gay is a choice if you want, but don't you dare go around persecuting them, or spreading hate, denying them rights, talking **** about them.

Answer 3

Actually, nothing you say above in any way means that the behavior is not genetic. Often, traits are passed even if the (presumably) homozygous carrier doesn't pass them on.

What if it is a trait that actually INCREASES the chances that related children carrying the genotype,even in a heterozygous state, will be born and survive even if children of the individual itself don't?

THAT is actually a somewhat common thing to find in the biological world. You can have traits that exist because more individuals carrying that trait survive (near-kin index selection) than they would otherwise, even if the trait itself may not leave a particular individual's young. Remember evolution is all about a SPECIES' survival, NOT an individual's.

What I find fascinating about some of the answers above - and about your question itself -- is that they don't even make the other assumption that "gay" behavior might well be selected for in an evolutionary context and be something that confers a selective advantage to the family line.

It could be selected for as an adjuct to something else or because having homosexual behavior and/or homosexuals in a band might well actually INCREASE the number of offspring left by their relatives. Does this necessarily have to be because the homosexual individual leaves his/her own offspring? No. It could be that there is near-kin selection. After all, think about this - let's just assume we're talking about males here, because females of whatever sexual persuasion could be bred by more aggressive males in a hunter/gatherer society. Assume that three or four males are homosexual in a moderately small group and that they are related to the others there -- gosh, what a concept, huh? These men bring in more food, share with the tribe (relatives) and help survival of all in the group, and yet they basically don't infringe on the mating perogatives of the breeding males. There are also more males available for defense of the band. It won't cut down on the breeding numbers either, since again, all females will likely be pregnant anyway. The males aren't having fights among themselves and you have a possibly more stable situation than if you had non-breeding males who were seeking females. (Is this what happened? I don't know, but I can easily see an evolutionary context for it. Heck, Greylag Geese that have homosexual triads rear way more young-- a triad is a male bonded pair that also includes a female. ) What makes you think that such couplings aren't known in human populations too - and may well have been at least as common in the past as they are now? Since the non-breeding males (homosexual ones) help the tribe produce more young - and since the young are related to them, the frequency of genes that allow the behavior can spread in the population

Answer 4

Im sorry to say this but your ignorant to the extreme! The gay gene appears when the female or son/daughter of an extremely fertile female has a child. And according to the theory of evolution "the fittest" survive. And in order to keep reproducing a female and male must be fertile, thus if either person is fertile then a gay son is most likely to occur. Having a gay son is actually an extremely good sign of fertility!

Answer 5

I'm gay, and don't know if it's genetic or not. I don't have the power to feel my genes through introspection. There has been some inconclusive evidence that there is a genetic component of homosexuality though. I have no idea how it could be passed on though. Maybe it's hormonal ; we all started as females in the womb. It wasn't a choice though, for me at least. And I don't know what you mean by "lifestyle."

Answer 6

Who says my genes are defective? Before my strokes, my IQ tested out at 175.

I know several gay men who have become fathers. Whom you love has nothing to do with reproductive ability. People have homosexual couplings all the time and they can still make babies. Ever hear of lesbian mothers?

If in fact the "no reproduction" theory were true, gays would be the epitome of evolution. If, say, 10% (to choose a random number) indulge in same gender coupling, by the laws of averages, the population will keep going up. The other 90% will keep boinking in the "regular" version 1.0 method.

BUT -- The world is already overcrowded enough. We need to lower the world population. therefore, to lower the population, the other 90% need to indulge in same-gender coupling. (Hey, sailor, whatcha doin' tonight?) Want to help save the world, or do you want to be a selfish breeder?

( Your theory, if it indeed is serious, is spurious at best. There is no proof that homosexuals are genetically incapable of making babies, or are a reproductive "dead end".)

Answer 7

I'm have been married for 20+ years and have always felt"different". a few years ago something happened to me that opened a whole new realm. I fell in love with another woman. I didn't want to it just happened. I wanted her badly and at the time thought about running away with her. she left town because she said she wouldn't be responsible for my ruining my life (husband and 3 kids) for her. Therefore, no, it is not a choice but something you have to really ponder on. i do believe that some people play the roles of gay/les just for the attention they get from being rebellious. real love can happen between anyone, not just m-f or f-m.

Answer 8

yet again, someone who obviously doesn't know one person who's openly gay, who believes every lie, assumption and stereotype ever told, and obviously chooses to never learn the truth.
defective genes? please! if anyone has defective genes it's people who claim we "choose". when did you choose to be straight? how long were you gay before you chose to be straight?
most studies these days are pointing more and more to sexual orientation being genetic....rooted in DNA. not a "defective" gene.
and we CAN and DO reproduce! sorry....I know plenty of gay men and lesbians who have biological children. it might not be done in the traditional way, but we do.
become different species? that's another good one! did you know that homosexuality has been documented in hundreds of species of animals? did they choose? or are they "defective" too?
everything about your "theory" is severely flawed.

Answer 9

You know, I have heard of nasty, awful, diseases tied to genetics that don't die out. I think Muscular Dystrophy is one of them. I think there is at least one type that affects children. Now, I am going to go make a rash assumption and say that most of these children affected by MD do not go on to have have their own kids.

By your logic, since these kids aren't growing up to have their own kids, MD should have died out long ago.

Now, I am not calling being gay a nasty, awful disease (because it isn't), but if the genes that cause MD or some other genetic disease can continue to exist, why wouldn't genes that predispose someone to being gay?

Now I will ask you this, when did you choose to be straight?

Answer 10

In hunter-gatherer times it might be of survival benefit for a small percentage of the males to be homosexual. These males would not join in the hunt, but could easily stay behind and protect the females and children of the group from rival tribes. The males out on the hunt wouldn't have to fear their women having sex with the males who stayed behind.

Gays also are not a 'different species' (their parents are straight), and scientific researchers who specialize in human sexuality have shown that homosexuality is linked to biology and genetics.

An October 2004 scientific research publication stated that scientists at the University of Padua have found that women tend to have more children when they inherit the same genetic factors linked to homosexuality in men. This fertility boost more than compensates for the lack of offspring fathered by gay men, and keeps the “gay” genetic factors in circulation.

A study published in Human Genetics in February 2006 examined X chromosome inactivation in mothers of gay sons and mothers whose sons were not gay. Researchers found extreme differences between women who had gay sons and women who did not.

Another scientific study said that researchers have known for years that a man's likelihood of being gay rises with the number of older biological brothers, but the new study found that the so-called "fraternal birth order effect" persists even if gay men were raised away from their biological families. Anthony F. Bogaert, Ph.D., professor at Brock University, said "The research suggests that the development of sexual orientation is influenced before birth."
The older-brother effect was constant regardless of whether the men were raised with natural, adopted or stepbrothers. It also didn't matter if they weren't raised with their biological mothers. If gay younger brothers and older brothers don't have the same home environments, what do they have in common? "They shared the same uterus, the same womb, the same mother," Bogaert said.