Homosexuality and natural selection
 

If homosexuality is genetic (trendy view nowadays and one I actually agree with), now that it is increasingly ok to come out of the closet, won't homosexuality be naturally selected out? (i.e the gay gene won't be passed on). In past generations homosexuality was repressed and so gay people were forced into child-producing hetrosexual relationships. As that changes, will homosexuality be naturally selected out?

Re: Homosexuality and natural selection
 

From Wiki:

[ QUOTE ]
Some scholars have suggested that homosexuality is adaptive in a non-obvious way. By way of analogy, the allele (a particular version of a gene) which causes sickle-cell anemia when two copies are present may also confer resistance to malaria with no anemia when one copy is present.[citation needed]

The so-called "gay uncle" theory posits that people who themselves do not have children may nonetheless increase the prevalence of their family genes in future generations by providing resources (food, supervision, defense, shelter, etc.) to the offspring of close relatives. This "gay relative" hypothesis is an extension of the theory of kin selection. Kin selection was originally developed to explain apparent altruistic acts which seemed to be maladaptive. The initial concept was suggested by J.B.S. Haldane in 1932 and later elaborated by many others including John Maynard Smith and West Eberhard.[3] This concept also was used to explain certain social insects where most of the members are non-reproductive.

[/ QUOTE ]

Re: Homosexuality and natural selection
 

this is flawed because straight people have gay children, so the gene must be recessive or a product of some combination of other genes.

Re: Homosexuality and natural selection
 

[ QUOTE ]
If homosexuality is genetic (trendy view nowadays and one I actually agree with), now that it is increasingly ok to come out of the closet, won't homosexuality be naturally selected out?

[/ QUOTE ]

I have nothing here to go on other than a dozen years in San Francisco but I'm 90% convinced that most gay men are way more promiscuous than the general population. Since men are much more interested in casual sex, finding enough partners for the truly randy is almost impossible. That leads to their own club, the gay men by choice.

Besides, if it's genetic we'll soon be able to test for it in vitro and abort them. I can hear them screaming already.

Re: Homosexuality and natural selection
 

Tweety, you seem to be looking at sexuality in too black/white of a manner. IMO, it is nothing concrete, and everyone is basically a shade of bi. Most people are just effectively "gay" or "straight" cause that's what becomes logistically sound. I'm no expert on this stuff, but I would say many if not most "straight" people have either some attraction to the same sex or at least a capacity to be attracted to the same sex.

So I don't think it's as simple as thinking "gay" people just stop reproducing. "Gay" is just a label, and not a concrete description of what's actually going on. There's no way to know exactly what traits will be selected for in the future. But, it's not exactly impossible for gay people to find a way to procreate today, and you can assume it's likely to only get easier in the future.

I have a loose theory (I guess it's sort of similar to the gay uncle thing) that the magical hand of evolution makes it so a being whose survival is more secured will have a higher capacity for same sex attraction as a defense against promiscuity. As your time preference is lowered, basically, you get more gay as a means of protecting against unwanted offspring. [img]/images/graemlins/ooo.gif[/img]

Then, if you do reproduce, it's increasingly more likely that you were in a position where you really wanted the child and are ready to be a great parent, thus increasing the likelihood that your offspring will make good decisions, thus perpetuating the cycle.

It makes sense in my head but it's sort of hard to put it in words. Feel free to flame my theory (pun very intended).

Re: Homosexuality and natural selection
 

[ QUOTE ]
this is flawed because straight people have gay children, so the gene must be recessive or a product of some combination of other genes.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wrong. The "gay gene" can be within every single human being, but that doesn't mean everyone will be gay. Just some of them. The gene "triggers" on some occasions or under certain circumstances.

Most ants are female and infertile. Very few are fertile, and there are pretty much the same number of males as fertile females (as it must be because of the "expected value selection").

Re: Homosexuality and natural selection
 

i don't see how it's flawed based on your reasoning. the gene could be recessive or the trait could need an environmental trigger. how does that make the idea flawed?

(i personally think it's unlikely that "gayness" is adaptive, but the idea isn't flawed because straight parents have gay kids)

Re: Homosexuality and natural selection
 

[ QUOTE ]
I have a loose theory (I guess it's sort of similar to the gay uncle thing) that the magical hand of evolution makes it so a being whose survival is more secured will have a higher capacity for same sex attraction as a defense against promiscuity. As your time preference is lowered, basically, you get more gay as a means of protecting against unwanted offspring.


[/ QUOTE ]

in the current era, where almost everyone survives through puberty, i don't see how unwanted offspring or promiscuity could possibly reduce your chances, biologically.

Re: Homosexuality and natural selection
 

[ QUOTE ]
i don't see how it's flawed based on your reasoning. the gene could be recessive or the trait could need an environmental trigger. how does that make the idea flawed?

(i personally think it's unlikely that "gayness" is adaptive, but the idea isn't flawed because straight parents have gay kids)

[/ QUOTE ]

its flawed in that if what you say there is true, doesn't that invalidate your OP?

Re: Homosexuality and natural selection
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
i don't see how it's flawed based on your reasoning. the gene could be recessive or the trait could need an environmental trigger. how does that make the idea flawed?

(i personally think it's unlikely that "gayness" is adaptive, but the idea isn't flawed because straight parents have gay kids)

[/ QUOTE ]

its flawed in that if what you say there is true, doesn't that invalidate your OP?

[/ QUOTE ]

huh? wasn't that my original post?
the gene being recessive or the trait needing an environmental trigger invalidates...the idea that being a "gay uncle" could be adaptive? no.
i guess i don't follow.

maybe you mean that it means that the answer to the orignal poster's question "will natural selection eliminate the trait" is no. sure, if the "gay uncle" hypothesis is right, the answer to that question would be no. still not sure that that's what you meant.