How can gayness have a genetic basis?

[m_the0ry]

Capturing the Friedmans

I recommend this movie, assuming you are not going into it with even a slightly depressed state of mind. It's not just the homosexuals that are capable of chameleon-izing themselves socially and procreating.

[Leaky Eye]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Maybe you and I have different views of what constitutes 'queer as hell' - how could they be 'extremely gay' (leaving aside the problem of defining that) and still desire to have sex with the wimmens?

[/ QUOTE ]

You have a very very inaccurate perception of homosexuality. There are innumerable cases of gay men getting married, having children and then 'realizing' they are gay. The societal pressures to conform and raise children are immense. Not to mention the biological pressure to procreate. It is anything but hard to find gay men with biological children.

[/ QUOTE ]

There is also no reason to assume that gay is the opposite of hetero, or at a minimum no reason that gay = reproductive sexual aversion. Which seems to be the entire premise of OPs declaration of gays' unfitness.

[All-In Flynn]

Anticipated in OP, to be honest. What I'm talking about is small tendencies, over evolutionary time-scales, will magnify effects in the genome. Suppose that gayness renders a male only 5% less likely to procreate - in the fulness of evolutionary time, this will have a profound effect. Do you doubt that gayness would tend to make a male compete with less vigour for the right to copulate with a female? Do you believe his competitors would not welcome this? Would they force their own rivals to compete all the harder? I am talking here about pre-civilisation, before codified laws and before all but the most rudimentary concepts of 'social norms' (group-selectionists note: the existence of homophobia argues strongly against the 'loser male' hypothesis, I'll explain why I think so if anyone cares).

Again, clearly there are countless examples of gays procreating - but undeniably (I think) they are somewhat less likely to - and that is what concerns me here. What I'm getting at is that if there's a genetic basis, it's emphatically not of the simple, two blue-eyed parents = blue-eyed baby type.

As to the supposed 'very very inaccurate view' of gayness - I'm not presuming to speak for or dictate the motives or feelings of contemporary gays - like contemporary straights, they are not the same as the relatively distant ancestors I'm discussing.

[Leaky Eye]

[ QUOTE ]
I am talking here about pre-civilisation, before codified laws and before all but the most rudimentary concepts of 'social norms'

[/ QUOTE ]

You are focusing on the male again.

For the female to win the breeding competition she merely had to look fertile and desirable enough to pass the bar for one of the breeding males who controlled all the females. Which could make her desire to have lesbian relationships lead to 0% less chance at reproduction.

[All-In Flynn]

OK slow down. Please don't put words in my mouth.

I have not said that gay is 'the opposite' of hetero.

I have not said that gayness is unfit - I have said I do not see how it can be.

As to "no reason that gay = reproductive sexual aversion" I have to wonder who it is who actually has the 'very very inaccurate view' of gayness. I imagine (I imagine, as in, I do not know, and I doubt whether any one person, even a gay one, could provide a definitive answer one way or another) that gay people do not find, or tend strongly not to find, members of the opposite sex attractive sexually.

(5 minute pause)

Now that the gasps of shock have finally died down, can we move on from this, and away from the idea that once you find a gay man who had a kid, a lesbian who had a kid, then any curiosity about the reproductive fitness of gayness is irrefutably silenced? Because that's absolute bollocks. I am talking about tendencies over very long periods of time and I have made that about as clear as I possibly can.

I think a lot of people here are allowing the (potential) political dimension of this issue to cloud their judgement. To throw my hat into the ring, one of my best beloved aunts is a lesbian. I do not have a problem with gays. I am not trying to construct some 'reason' to hate them or look down on them or in any way impugn or call into question their right to life and liberty and all that jazz - I'm just talking about genetic theory. I sense hostility behind your words and I hope this will allay it.

[m_the0ry]

My only point thus far here was to make sure you were aware of where your argument was going and realize the 'homosexuals do not procreate' argument has no foundation (your statement being, "how could they be 'extremely gay' and still desire to have sex with the wimmens? [sic]").

I personally don't think we have a good enough understanding of human behavior to characterize homosexuality as an effect exclusively of either nature or exclusively nurture. The fact that straight couples produce the large majority of gay offspring is a better way to start your argument in my opinion.

[All-In Flynn]

{Edit: It's so late it's early where I am, so I won't bother revising what follows - just bear in mind that I hadn't seen your post at the bottom of page 3 when I wrote this]

I seem to recall studies by Helen Fischer (sp?) indicating that it may be women who determine with whom they will mate - selecting the most desirable male. This could plausibly render lesbianism a genetic non-starter - as to the males, it again seems plausible that a gay male would be less likely to compete with the same vigour as a straight counterpart.

Yes the conditions are not binary, and I personally subscribe to a 'spectrum' theory of sexuality, but I find it difficult to reconcile this with a genetic basis for gayness.

[Leaky Eye]

[ QUOTE ]
I have not said that gayness is unfit - I have said I do not see how it can be.

[/ QUOTE ]

Fair enough.

[ QUOTE ]
that gay people do not find, or tend strongly not to find, members of the opposite sex attractive sexually.

[/ QUOTE ]

I haven't known a lot of gay folks well enough to ask them about this. All four that I have admitted that they found the opposite sex attractive in their youth (reproductive prime). I have no idea if this is common or not.

[ QUOTE ]
Now that the gasps of shock have finally died down, can we move on from this, and away from the idea that once you find a gay man who had a kid, a lesbian who had a kid, then any curiosity about the reproductive fitness of gayness is irrefutably silenced? Because that's absolute bollocks. I am talking about tendencies over very long periods of time and I have made that about as clear as I possibly can.

I think a lot of people here are allowing the (potential) political dimension of this issue to cloud their judgement. To throw my hat into the ring, one of my best beloved aunts is a lesbian. I do not have a problem with gays. I am not trying to construct some 'reason' to hate them or look down on them or in any way impugn or call into question their right to life and liberty and all that jazz - I'm just talking about genetic theory. I sense hostility behind your words and I hope this will allay it.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't know why you said this in a reply to me. I haven't said anything of the sort in any of my replies.

I am saying we evolved in polygyny. In polygyny women are reproductively dominant. In polygyny it is plausible that women could be lesbian and not be any less reproductively successful. In polygyny it is plausible lesbianism would confer advantages.

If this theory were correct it would mean current society should eventually breed gayness out if it can be bread out. Hardly seems politically motivated to say that.

[ QUOTE ]
I sense hostility behind your words and I hope this will allay it.

[/ QUOTE ]

I am not hostile. I am frustrated that I keep talking about women and you keep replying about men. But that is partly my fault for my first post which was a mess.

[All-In Flynn]

[ QUOTE ]
In polygyny it is plausible that women could be lesbian and not be any less reproductively successful.

[/ QUOTE ]

Again, don't see how this could be so, unless we insist either that there is absolutely no such thing as 'entirely gay' or at least that women tend to be more 'moderately' gay. Yes, I'm just going to go ahead and assume that gayness tends to reduce the desire, not necessarily to procreate (what urge are gays following when they get their gay sex on? Surely the same as the rest of us.), but to have sex with members of the opposite gender - which leads to procreation.

Your account of gays finding members of the opposite sex attractive in youth is interesting... though there are so many accounts (even of people that I know) of a child being 'unmistakeably gay' (not my phrase) from very early childhood. Seems to fuel the 'spectrum' theory.

I'm tired. Hope this will still be going tomorrow, it's an interesting discussion.

[Edit: the second half of my previous post was aimed at m_the0ry].

[Praxising]

Flynn-

Same sex preference is observed in pretty much EVERY vertebrate animal, from fish to chickens, from horses to chimpanzees. It occurs in approximately the same ratio to general population as in humans.

Yes, sexuality and gender are traits defined by, or heavily influenced by, genes. It would take a couple semesters worth of posts for me to explain all this to you. I am not saying you are unable to understand or anything like that, just that this is a very complex topic, much moreso than the blue-eyed/brown-eyed examples from high school.