Homosexuality: Taboo and gene

[CrONoS]

I don't know anything about gene or genetics but whatever here my question:

The taboo on homosexuality forced the homosexuals to marry women and so they had babies, and if we conclude that genetics is the main caused of homosexuality, so we could say that the taboo(on homosexuality) helped the homosexual gene to spread.

Since homosexuality is now "widely" accepted and homosexual are not forced to marry a women. They practically don't have babies and less babies are born with the homosexual gene.

Is that reasonable to think that; homosexuality would tend to decrease over time?

(Before someone complained, I don't have anything against homosexuality)

[Patroklos]

A valid question if you believe it is genetic.

I think you will find most people don't think that, and will flame you momentarily for even suggesting it.

[Japher]

I think homosexuality could be genetic in much the same way most behavioral tendancies can be attributed to genetics. However, there are some behavorial tendancies that can be attributed to environment as well. Since no study has really been conducted to prove this, nor could they (possibly) I would not take a position on the matter. However, I would like to point out that dolphins have been known to exhibit homosexual tendencies. Thus, it's just as likely that Homos are part dolphin!

[Patroklos]

If I remember correctly the dolphin thing is a dominance display. Sort of like making you my ***** sort of thing.

In any case that behavior in dolphins ended up not being homosexual, but there are aparently other animals that do display homosexual behavior.

Gay animals don't really do it for me so I haven't looked into it, maybe Mr. Fun can enlighten us.

[Jon Miller]

I think that homosexuality is genetic. You see it in animals where there would be no social advantage/etc.

JM

[CrONoS]

Originally posted by Jon Miller
I think that homosexuality is genetic. You see it in animals where there would be no social advantage/etc.

JM

Hey Jon,

Could you elaborate?

Thanks,

CrONoS

[Lorizael]

The concept of recessive genes doesn't help your theory. It's entirely possible that someone who is not homosexual could pass on a hypothetical homosexual gene.

[Arrian]

I know little about genetics as well, but it's a reasonable question.

edit: Regressive genes mean that hetros can pass on homo genes, but even so wouldn't there be a decline over time?

-Arrian

[Caligastia]

Originally posted by Japher
I think homosexuality could be genetic in much the same way most behavioral tendancies can be attributed to genetics. However, there are some behavorial tendancies that can be attributed to environment as well. Since no study has really been conducted to prove this, nor could they (possibly) I would not take a position on the matter. However, I would like to point out that dolphins have been known to exhibit homosexual tendencies. Thus, it's just as likely that Homos are part dolphin!

Homosexuals crop up from a wide variety of backgrounds/environments, so I think it's reasonable to assume that there must be some genetic or non-environmental influence.

It may also be that not all homosexuality is caused by the same thing. There may be a genetic cause and an environmental cause. Or they could just be pervs.

[Patroklos]

Regressive genes mean that hetros can pass on homo genes, but even so wouldn't there be a decline over time?

Yes, because you would have to have both parents with genes for them to show up. Though this would mean a more random apperance of the trait from most perspectives.

Like red hair

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Arrian
I know little about genetics as well, but it's a reasonable question.

edit: Regressive genes mean that hetros can pass on homo genes, but even so wouldn't there be a decline over time?

-Arrian

Why does a gene that reduces odds of survival/reproduction survive?

In general, IIUC, there are three possibilities
1. Luck. When theres a population bottleneck, lots of bad mutations will make it through and be widespread by accident. If the bottleneck is recent, there may not be time for the gene to eliminate itself, though it should decline over time (as you said)
2. An advantage to carriers recessive form. Classic example is sickle cell anemia. If you get two genes and get anemia, you likely die. If you only get one, you dont get anemia, but you do get a higher immunity to malaria. For a more controversial example, google on Tay Sachs, torsion distonia, ashkenazi, IQ.
3. Sociobiological reasons - its not direct descendants that matter, its anyone carrying the gene. So Uncle Fred is "not the marrying kind" but helps to support his siblings kids - the whole lineage may benefit from Uncle Fred, and so the "gay gene" may increase in frequency, as Freds nephews and nieces (who are "carriers") do better than lineages without the "gay gene" IIUC this is the most common explanation

How the above interacts with bans on gay marriage, Im not sure. I would suggest that its not true that in unenlightened times gay men always married. There have often been bachelors, etc.

[LordShiva]

Yeah, I doubt that the frequency at which gay people have teh icky straight sex has much to do with whether they're allowed to marry their fellow gheys or not.

[Arrian]

For a more controversial example, google on Tay Sachs, torsion distonia, ashkenazi, IQ.

Talking about JOOS again



I agree that gay marriage wouldn't have that much impact on gays having offspring. But general societal attitudes towards gays would, no? I mean there's a pretty wide range of attitudes between a society that allows gay marriage and one that, say, tends to just execute gays.

-Arrian

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Arrian


Talking about JOOS again

Ok, just google on Tay Sachs, tortion dystonia and IQ.

[LordShiva]

Gay marriage might increase the number of offspring gays have, since married couples probably have an easier time with like donor eggs/sperm and surrogate mothers and whatnot.