How can gayness have a genetic basis?

[All-In Flynn]

Mmmm. You didn't read my whole post, did you?

[Rduke55]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Oral histories of gays are very telling.

[/ QUOTE ]
No, not really. Few people can understand and control the basis of their urges, many of which arise from something as simple a childhood experience, or wiring that gets crossed during childhood between affection and sexual attraction toward males. Why do you think it's often stated that males tend to be attracted to people like their mothers? Conditioning. And that's in normal individuals.

[ QUOTE ]
Time after time in coming out stories people describe their desperate attempts to be straight, often lasting for decades. For them, it's clearly of biological origin.

[/ QUOTE ]
By this reasoning, child molesting is also biologically based. Yet you don't hear many people advocating that idea, even though it would be significantly more "evolutionary fit" than gayness.

The fact is that our brains are so advanced, and go through such a long period of haphazard development, that all kinds of things can get screwed up and crossed and confused, regardless of your genes. Putting it down entirely or mostly to genes (which the evidence does not support) is taking away from where the responsibility usually lies - which is with the individual.

[/ QUOTE ]

Phil, I don't want to get too far off track, but based on our discussions the above statements seem very much at odds with your views on neurobiology and human behavior. For example, I'm very interested in why you attribute a big role for environmental influences in development of sexual attraction and none (or close to it) for intelligence, brain size, etc.

[Leaky Eye]

[ QUOTE ]
Perhaps they would, but by the very theory you lay out, any gene causing such would inevitably fail to take hold. It's not as though there's a separate 'loser' dynasty that evolves gaynesss to cope with its inability to reproduce - if it's unable to reproduce, it dies out.

[/ QUOTE ]

No they wouldn't. I am sure it is all some game theory puzzle. The societies that had less internal strife due to lessened sexual tension would outcompete those that did not.

This could be passed by the lesbians, who still had to procreate with their male. Which would be likely in this scenario because polygyny is heavily tilted in reproductive favor of the female.

Also the dominant males could easily be queer as hell and still desire to reproduce with their stable of females.

For all we know we come from a species that was primarily homosexual, yet would still copulate for reproduction, and are evolving into heteros.

More likely we come from a species that would stick it in anything because their hormones raged so hard. (that sentence is so gay it proves it!)

[TomCowley]

Sickle-cell anemia is a simple example of how a "bad" gene can persist. 2 copies are clearly bad, but 1 copy confers a degree of resistance to malaria. The gene actively kills some people and stops them from reproducing, but it actively helps others reproduce, so it survives.

Note: The next paragraph is pure speculation to provide an example- I have no evidence that the genetic basis of homosexuality fits this model.

Since the genetic component of homosexuality is definitely more complicated (and studies of identical twins separated at birth confirm a genetic component), let's assume we have multiple genes that come together to give a degree of predisposition toward homosexuality. If each of these genes, in the absence of the others (or the absence of enough of the others) confers an advantage, then just like the sickle cell gene, it will propagate and multiply in spite of the fact it directly causes some offspring to be unable to reproduce.

If there were exactly 1 gene for homosexuality, and it had no other effect besides a gay/straight switch, you would be correct that the trait is most likely not old (it could still get lucky and propagate for awhile), but homosexuality is obviously not the sole result of one gene with no other side effects, so your conclusion does not follow, as the two examples above show.

[All-In Flynn]

As I suspected, this is group-selectionist thinking.

[ QUOTE ]
Also the dominant males could easily be queer as hell and still desire to reproduce with their stable of females.

[/ 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?

Your polygyny theory and the 'loser male' hypothesis would be far more likely to lead to a 'rape gene' than a 'gay gene'. I can see how it would be more successful.

[All-In Flynn]

Interesting. I should make clear that I'm not hostile to the idea of a genetic basis, just sceptical. I am in fact surprised that this seems to be under-discussed - it cries out for an explanation.

So we accept that each element in this 'geneplex' confers a specific advantage to the organism - doesn't the ~10% figure imply (it does to me) that we're looking at a fairly small group of genes (probability people please comment if possible)? Seems likely as too large a group would probably make gayness much rarer than it appears... or it could be due to the convergence of separate geneplexes...

Does anyone have links to research on this subject?

[Leaky Eye]

Focus more on this part:

[ QUOTE ]
This could be passed by the lesbians, who still had to procreate with their male. Which would be likely in this scenario because polygyny is heavily tilted in reproductive favor of the female.

[/ QUOTE ]

As for the part you quoted. You are assuming its binary with your reply. There is no reason for this assumption. Could be non-exclusive genetic states for both a) want to do womens, and b) want to do mens.

As for group selection thinking I stated it wrong. It actually would work that the homosexuals would get a long better in the polygynous society because they are less sexually frustrated. The frustrated strictly hetero female may be selected against due to her behavior not being tolerated.

[All-In Flynn]

[ QUOTE ]
It actually would work that the homosexuals would get a long better in the polygynous society because they are less sexually frustrated.

[/ QUOTE ]

'Getting along better' is not the same as 'successfully reproducing'. As I edited above before I read this, a 'rape gene' could well do far better in your scenario. Or consider a 'wanking gene' whereby the loser males relieve their frustration by shaking hands with the unemployed... all masturbation = no frustration, but no copulation = no next generation!

[m_the0ry]

[ 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.

[Leaky Eye]

Stop selectively quoting me. The unsuccessful males are irrelevant. The females dominate reproductive success in polygyny. If you don't believe me do some reading on polygyny.

Ignore the males. Males are reproductive failures in polygyny.

Females get emotional support, happiness, and sexual relief due to their lesbian relationships. Less stress and increases human longevity in all manner of ways. Therefore lesbians who tolerate, or even embrace procreation with their male are more fit in a polygynous society, than either strict heterosexuals, or lesbians who won't have reproductive sex.

Edit: and I do realize my first post explained this terribly.