Discussion in 'Off-Topic' started by Angst, Feb 27, 2015.
There several problems with this speculation, the main one being that you are thinking that all the other effects of this "gay" gene are beneficial and not detrimental, which is just as likely. We don't know if they are good or bad so you only have the one trait that we know is detrimental to reproduction to judge by. And second you are speculating that the positive aspects are ever great enough to offset the smaller chance of reproducing for someone who 100% has the gene.
Its more likely that forced suppression of the gays in the past for the religious organizations that tried to exterminate them has ironically led to the spread of the gene to the point now that the very people who want to "rid the world of gayness" really don't have a way to get rid of it.
You can have sex with as many members of the same gender as you want. Your still not going to produce kids. Actually having less sex with members of the opposite sex has a huge bearing on reproduction, especially for men. If you have sex with fewer women as a man, the number of offspring you have will likely decrease. Why do you think all those sports superstars have so many non-legit kids with baby-mommas? They have a lot of sex.
There honestly isn't any logic for this. Yes, if its a common mutation, it should show up every once in a while but then be snuffed out and wouldn't spread that much. Other conditions like Hutchinson–Gilford progeria syndrome does manifest itself because of mutations in the gene pool. But since people with the syndrome don't generally reproduce(they generally die of old age before they can), the gene is generally snuffed out quickly and doesn't spread. Just because a population reaches a critical mass doesn't mean a gene that is detrimental to reproduction is going to survive in it.
Because of the biological aspect of it, I suspect that at least some part of it has to come from nurture as opposed to all nature. Either that or that gay people are really bi, which would actually explain everything.
You're just torturing yourself, Mr Narz.
People who think there cannot be a genetic component to homosexuality because 'hey, it would get weeded out' would do well to consider that 'here, hold my beer and watch this' genetic stupidity should have been weeded out by now by the same logic.
There are a number of reasons for me personally.
First, I find the female body more aesthetically pleasing. My attraction to men has more to do with sensations that have nothing to do with the visual.
Secondly, I treat the two differently. To women, I'm usually the more active one; to men, I prefer being handled.
Thirdly, I'm more into women than into men. I'm only romantically interested in women, for one.
Fourthly, I'd like to note that my female bi acquaintances have it way easier hooking up with girls than boys. The promiscuous attitude in gay sex has more to do with the environment being more socially liberal to being with, it's inherently nonconservative and with less socially institutionalized rules (so it's not just because men want sex more than women).
And lastly, JollyRoger has a point. When I hook up the absolutely greatest part is the flirting bit and the crescendo until the first kiss. Then it all goes downhill from there, so I prefer stalling as much as possible. (Although the whole experience does feel incomplete without proper closure; that is, either of you going home with the other.)
But isn't the point that having a few individuals in a population that do not reproduce and therefore serve other roles benefitting survival might be able to outcompete populations where everyone reproduces? Even a dad should take some time off for the kids. I mean, I know it's pure speculation, but you could look at ants or bees for example where the population's reproduction follows a completely different logic that "everyone should have kids". Your progeria example makes sense why it's weeded out, but progeria doesn't serve the population any benefit whatsoever, people that suffer from it can work nowhere as effeciently as the gay uncle; the two genetic traits are not similar in how they could serve a gene pool, as one is definitely detrimetal and the other may have positive benefits. I think there is logic to be found in that populations with a chance to produce non-child-bearing individuals may have a larger total effeciency than populations without that chance. Even if it is speculation.
1) Homosexuality isn't hereditary
2) Straight couples procreating create homosexual offspring
3) Research for over the last decade shows a far stronger link that homosexuality is caused by hormonal imbalances during pregnancy rather than a direct phenotypic expression of any genes.
4) People who spout that homosexuality is / isn't genetic are 99.999% of the time uneducated plebs and very likely to be wrong.
5) People who spout that homosexuality is a choice are 100% of the time uneducated plebs and are always wrong.
This doesn't strike you as a bit sad?
Granted, with a breadth of experience of one the outlook is probably a lot different, but it seems like while the nature has changed a lot over ten years it keeps getting better even as it gets less frantic.
It's worth remembering that "gay" and "not straight" are't synonyms. There's at least as many bisexual or bi-leaning people as gay people, so if we're going to speculate on the evolutionary mechanics, we should probably bring them into it.
I don't know how easy that will be, because bisexuality tends to really quickly bring out the extent to which gender roles and beauty norms and such are historically variable. For example, the fact that a lot of historical cultures have accepted male bisexuality as normal and even normative, but only when practised under certain conditions and between certain partners. How, who and why people have sex is always, in practice, a more complex process than the working out of genetic predispositions.
edit: In fact, this whole issue of historical variability has a direct bearing on Archbob's claim that homosexuals don't reproduce or are less likely to reproduce. In most cultures, most of the time, sexual gratification and reproduction are more clearly distinguished aims than they are today; building a household and perpetuating a lineage are expectations that everyone would share, regardless of their sexual preference. It's only because in modern society there's no pressing need for anybody to building a traditional household that it seems like a "straight" thing to do: we tacitly acknowledge that it's as much a lifestyle choice as any other. In other social contexts, that isn't necessarilly true, or at least not in the same way. This whole logic of "I want to screw this thing, therefore I reproduce" is just a really bad caricature of human psychology and carries little to no explanatory power when removed from the context of a heavily individualised, sexually libertarian society like ours.
Doesn't that same research from your #3 also mention post-birth environmental/behavior also has a (suspected) significant influence in causation? The research ive seen on hormonal imbalance simply isn't/cant be the sole factor.
Yes, that seems to be the general problem.
Do you remember when America became a country though?
Compare that to how many millions of years humans were living in primitive tribes. Not sure how good your history is, but that was a long time before anyone even thought to name a place called America.
Polygamy should be legalized.
I don't understand your second paragraph at all, would you please reiterate?
- Fwiw I don't think it's sad, but it's mostly because of my age. I'm not that old as to enter a "real" serious relationship (even if I hope my current one lasts) so this is the time for me to have some poetic, erotic, flirtatious experiences. It will be sad if I do it at age forty though, I think I should be more preferential to finding someone to help or take care of. (Even if I am currently helping and supporting another person, and hope to do that for my whole life. )
As usual men on the internet have forgotten to consider one half of the population in who gene complexes associated with male homosexuality may have a different effect.
Its not the same logic because unless you die or become sterile after you do said stupid thing it doesn't matter. It won't effect you passing on your genes. Not having sex with the opposite gender, however, will.
This would suggest homosexuality is nurture instead of nature, which is fine to me.
Tribal societies are based around an extended family unit where having a "gay uncle" may have actually been more beneficial(although there is very little actual scientific evidence that such a gay uncle leads to more offspring for his/her siblings). Our society in America doesn't really function around such a unit. But, as you said, our society is quite new so maybe in a few generations such an effect will be noticeable.
You keep bringing up America, but I don't really understand why. America as a concept has only existed for a tiny amount of time - we are talking about evolutionary timescales here.
Bestiality in nature? Animals are quite notorious for it, I'll give you that.
Because more westernized society is where we seem to be headed, at least in this part of the world. So, if it were genetic, we should see a decrease in the coming generations as the benefits of having a "gay uncle" become less.
You're missing here is when I speak of a "gay gene". I speak of genes that increase the likelihood of being gay. There's no gene where if you have it you're gay and if you don't have it you're not. That likelihood of being is dependent on the number of other gay genes out there. So if the population has lots of gay genes. It's common, but few gay genes it's rare.
Here's a toy model: There are three genes: A,B,C. Each come in two varieties: the uppercase "gay risk" version and the lowercase "no risk" version. If you have three or more copies of any of the genes you are gay but if you have one or two copies you have a mild reproductive advantage over those who don't have any.
So: Aa,BB,cc = gay Aa,bB,Cc = gay, but Aa,bb,Cc = not gay.
If these genes are very rare in the population then If you have Aa,bb,cc you have a benefit from "A" and your kids are very unlikely to be gay.
Because of that, gay genes that confer mild benefits will not be eradicated by preventing gays from reproducing, even if the benefit is small.
And we know they're probably good because being gay seems to persist despite the fact that gays themselves probably don't seem to have much reproductive success.
Edit: I should note that by good, I of course mean the benefits outweigh drawbacks when sufficiently rare in population. It could be inherently a mixed bag that's a net positive even at low frequency.
It may play a role, however, if gay genes have no benefits, they will not persist. Anything that merely changes the amount of drawbacks for having gay genes is not going to explain the persistence of gay genes. It may allow gay genes to be more popular, but only some beneficial effects will explain why they persist.
Conversely, anything that confers a small benefit when sufficiently rare will not be weeded out. The condition is balancing selection:
Separate names with a comma.