[Soapbox] Being "naturally" gay

[warpus]

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.

Evolution does not really work that fast - you have to consider much longer timelines. Millions of years - not 200.

Besides, homosexuals are becoming more accepted in society, not less, at least here in the west. If anything the "gay uncle" thing is becoming stronger, not weaker.

 

[Archbob]

Evolution does not really work that fast - you have to consider much longer timelines. Millions of years - not 200.

Besides, homosexuals are becoming more accepted in society, not less, at least here in the west. If anything the "gay uncle" thing is becoming stronger, not weaker.

Actually, them becoming more accepted is not a good thing for gays evolutionarily. If you are pressured to be straight even though you are gay, that actually increases the chances of you having children. And them becoming more accepted isn't all that significant to the family unit. Uncles and Aunties aren't as big a part of most people lives as they would have been in older tribal societies. Extended families don't live together generally so that gay uncle is more likely to be hundreds of miles away.

And evolution isn't always slow. The Hapsburgs through incest fell through the cracks pretty fast.

 

[Traitorfish]

I don't think Archbob knows what term "evolution" means?

 

[Borachio]

Selection can happen pretty quickly, though.

Apparently, hedgehogs have gone through this process with the gene responsible for them crossing the road and getting flattened disappearing from their gene pool in the UK.

When was the last time I saw a squashed hedgehog beside the road? It used to be a very common sight.

Then there was that thingy with a moth in polluted London. Or something. I forget.

 

[Wolfbeckett]

Selection can happen very quickly under extraordinary circumstances, that's true. When the selection pressures change drastically, things can change very quickly (relative to geological time, still takes a while relative to human time). It could be argued that modern society is one of those drastically changed selection pressures, but then again, it can also be argued that it isn't, it's one of those things that usually only seems obvious in hindsight. In any case we haven't even shown that homosexuality is subject to such selection pressures. As some have pointed out earlier in the thread, there are other mechanisms that would allow homosexuality to be something you're born with without having to be strictly genetic, for example the hormone balance you get while in utero. We don't really know, and it's really tough to come up with experiments that can be done ethically that would allow us to find out for sure. All we can do is collect as much data on people that are already homosexual as possible and then try to extrapolate from that, we can't ethically set up experiments where we mess with the development of fetuses and then wait to see how they turn out.

The simple solution, of course, is for everyone to just accept that consenting adults should be allowed to bang any other consenting adult they want and granted the same legal rights as everyone else, so that the question becomes moot. Simple, but not easy, people with firmly entrenched beliefs are hard to sway.

 

[Traitorfish]

Selection can happen pretty quickly, though.

Apparently, hedgehogs have gone through this process with the gene responsible for them crossing the road and getting flattened disappearing from their gene pool in the UK.

When was the last time I saw a squashed hedgehog beside the road? It used to be a very common sight.

Human generations are spaced considerably further apart than hedgehog generations, though; modern-day humans generally start reproducing between the ages of twenty and thirty, hedgehogs start reproducing at around six months. Fifty years of hedgehog selection is equivalent to two or three thousand years of human selection, whereas the sort of times Archbob is suggesting for humans would be something like four or five years for hedgehogs.

 

[Borachio]

Simple, but not easy, people with firmly entrenched beliefs are hard to sway

It's a real mystery to me why people hold these firmly entrenched beliefs on homosexuality. What's in it for them?

I've no interest in practicing homosexuality myself, but why not just let other people get on with it? It affects me in no way.

 

[Wolfbeckett]

It's a real mystery to me why people hold these firmly entrenched beliefs on homosexuality. What's in it for them?

I've no interest in it myself, but why not just let them get on with it? It affects me in no way.

Nothing is in it for them directly. The people I've met who are anti-gay almost universally fall in to 2 categories:

1.) Ewwwww, that's icky!

2.) It's against God's law.

I have yet to ever see a single argument against homosexuality that is actually rational and valid.

 

[Borachio]

It is a bit icky. But then all sex is icky. Otherwise you're not doing it right.

 

[Traitorfish]

It's a real mystery to me why people hold these firmly entrenched beliefs on homosexuality. What's in it for them?

I've no interest in practicing homosexuality myself, but why not just let other people get on with it? It affects me in no way.

I don't know if a lot of people really do have very deeply entrenched beliefs on homosexuality. There are a minority of very conservative, typically religious people who believe it to be absolutely and objectively wrong, but I think for most homophobes it's simply a matter of deviancy. My impression is that, when you see homophobic legislation being passed, it's not because a majority actively support it, but because there's an actively homophobic minority who wield enough influence to make elections conditional on it, while a passively homophobic majority are simply not dissuaded from voting for their preferred candidate because they support this legislation.

 

[Domen]

Evolution does not really work that fast

It does, under various selective pressures. Dmitriy Belyaev made such experiments on rats:

https://atroublesomeinheritance.fil...-human-history-penguin-press-hc-the-20141.pdf

Similar selective pressures applied to humans. Humans are the most domesticated of all animals.

 

[Domen]

Gori it was an interesting post, why did you remove it?

But what were those references like #35, etc. ???

 

[Borachio]

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.

Something to do with how this post has ignored the consideration already given to the female of the species by this thread.

Mr Grey was maybe a bit tart, though. So perhaps that's why he deleted it.

 

[Domen]

you have to consider much longer timelines. Millions of years - not 200.

In a currently self-domesticated species like humans, evolution is pretty fast:

Spoiler :

Consider also the fact that evolution usually gets faster with rising population - because a greater variety of mutations arise at once, and more often some of them turn out to be very favourable, after which they spread fast; H. Harpending and G. Cochran in their book described that genetic studies on the populations of Africa, which have been undergoing a demographic explosion in the last 100 years, found that they are producing mutations in various genes at a very high speed - add to this the rapidly changing environment in which people live on that continent (very rapid transformations from tribal to modern societies).

In the past it was also assumed that most of recent human evolition has been happening via random drift, not selection.

But according to recent discoveries it seems that selection has not ceased to influence human populations.

 

[Domen]

As for a hypothetical gene of homosexuality, and the question why it hasn't died out.

Maybe it is being transferred by bisexuals, maybe two versions exist - dominant for bisexualism and recessive for homosexualism.

This would explain why it hasn't died out due to lack of offspring among homosexuals.

That said, historically many homosexuals did have offspring - they did have official partners of opposite sex, and lovers of same sex.

Or maybe simply this is a gene which has some evolutionary advantages, but not related to homosexualism. Think about what is a stereotypical gay - sociable, not aggressive, humorous, etc. Maybe these traits are being promoted by some gene, and homosexualism is just a side effect of this gene.

Maybe this allele - when inherited in just one copy (from one parent) - produces a humorous, sociable, etc. straight or bisexual person.

While a recessive version (inherited from both parents - a copy from each parent) - a humorous, sociable, etc. but also gay person.

There are similar cases. Just to mention the malaria resistance gene.

If you inherit it from one parent - you get just malaria resistance. But if from both parents - you get also sickle cell anemia...

 

[bhavv]

Its NOT HEREDITARY in the sense that 'if the parents don't have the gene, its impossible for the offspring to have it'. If genetics are involved, then the process which causes the 'mutation' occurs during pregnancy, not by direct hereditary. There are many 'conditions' that are known to be caused by genetics, but do not require either parent to possess the gene(s) that cause that condition.

I.E. Not all genetic traits are hereditary. Non hereditary traits can still be genetic. The whole 'if its genetic then it will be wiped out due to affected people not breeding', or similar arguments are plain ignorance.

 

[Domen]

There are many 'conditions' that are known to be caused by genetics, but do not require either parent to possess the gene(s) that cause that condition.

But these are various disorders, caused by DNA getting damaged one way or another.

If during pregnancy and not from parents, then rather it's caused by hormones, not genes.

Or genes from bacteria - "Mothers can pass traits to offspring through bacteria's DNA":

https://news.wustl.edu/news/Pages/mothers-can-pass-traits-to-offspring-through-bacterias-DNA.aspx

(...) a new study in mice by researchers at Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis has shown that the DNA of bacteria that live in the body can pass a trait to offspring in a way similar to the parents’ own DNA. According to the authors, the discovery means scientists need to consider a significant new factor – the DNA of microbes passed from mother to child (...)

 

[Senethro]

Something to do with how this post has ignored the consideration already given to the female of the species by this thread.

Mr Grey was maybe a bit tart, though. So perhaps that's why he deleted it.

The criticism was pretty spot on, I'd completely overlooked post 20 and noone else discussed the point I thought most pertinent so it slipped my notice.

Look, its as simple as if whatever gene complex/complexes cause homosexuality (and there is most definitely a heritable component) increase the reproductive success of the other gender more than homosexuality decreases it, then it won't be removed from the population.

That should be the end of the discussion because we are otherwise lacking good evidence like what genes these actually are. All this blabber trying to prove by logic that homosexuality is naturally impossible is just a waste of time and frankly is like watching a discussion of climate.

 

[Terxpahseyton]

I personally believe that anyone, in principle, can enjoy either sex (or those who define themselves in-between) in a sexual way. Though I don't want to deny that the concept of orientation has some significant standing. What I deny is that it is akin to some kind of law. An in light of that, I fully support the gist of the OP.
I think it is just a complicated web of biology, social influences and personal experiences - and only the social pressure makes people define themselves in law-like categories.
To illustrate: If Mister X thinks "I really don't like to get intimate with men" then this is not what I mean by law-like categories. What makes it law-like is if this taste carries the notion and all the baggage of the label of heterosexual.
I may not like strawberry ice - but that doesn't mean I am predetermined to never ever enjoy it. That is the difference. And even if I never liked it - under certain circumstances, I may suddenly enjoy it a lot. Or I don't, whatever. I still won't claim that I am hardwired to not be able to like strawberry ice.

 

[Narz]

Angst, thanks for the answers!

You're just torturing yourself, Mr Narz.

I should probably start meditating to reduce my desire.

The sad fact of dating/sex is the hungrier you are for it, the less likely you are to get it.

The easiest times I ever got sex were from women I barely even acknowledged as sexual beings. I just tired of the chase (and in one case I wasn't all that attracted to the woman even though objectively she had a nice body).

Polygamy should be legalized.

It should but probably never will be. So the divorce rates will continue to go up, fewer people will continue to marry in the first place & marriage will become more & more of a joke.