I was thinking about eugenics, and had a thought about gay culture… Historically, homosexuals (male or female) have still had children because it was “expected of them” and homosexuality was an underground movement. Now that homosexuality is acceptable, and there’s no stigma attached to having a same sex partner and not reproducing biologically, it seems quite likely that in a few generations the genes for homosexuality will be almost completely eliminated from the human species. How ironic that the biggest contribution of gay culture to the human condition may be the complete elimination of homosexuality.
If Christian nutjobs actually wanted to be rid of homosexuality, the best thing they could do would be to support gay unions and pray for the results of the selective non-breeding it will bring about. However, by pushing it underground and encouraging “orientation denial”, they ensure the gene persists. Of course, Christian nutjobs don’t believe in evolution, so good luck convincing them of this.
33 Comments
That’s assuming that homosexuality is hereditary right?
I think this assumes that homosexuality is a genetic trait and can only be passed on by homosexuals, which I highly doubt is true.
Nice owl shirt, btw.
How about gay people who still feel the desire to be a parent? Or, in a more tricky situation, transgendered people? It’s not a fast choice when you know taking hormones to make you finally be “right” could eliminate your chance to raise a child.
Interesting thoughts. As far as I’m aware, though, there is not conclusive proof of a ‘gay gene’ as of yet. I’m not saying it doesn’t exist, but it may not be as simple as a certain genetic marker being passed along.
As you have talked about in the past many times, much of our sexuality is instinctive–a possible indicator that is is genetically driven. Given the diversity of sexuality that exists, there may not be a single marker for homosexuality, but rather a series of combinations that lead to a homosexual-dominant sexuality. Maybe homosexuality can lay dormant for generations and then all of a sudden appear, without any evidence of a specific genetic marker.
What I’m trying to say is that maybe there is not ‘different’ gene for homosexuality, but rather it is a specific combination of the markers that determine all sexuality, albeit a slightly less common combination, if we are to believe statistics.
And of course, many gay and lesbian couples procreate despite being openly gay–and such procreation is becoming more accessible and more socially acceptable. Being gay/lesbian doesn’t mean you don’t want/aren’t able to procreate.
The idea of a gay gene has certainly been around for years, with some controversy. While positively identifying the ‘gay gene’ would end any argument of nature versus nurture–homosexuality obviously being a natural, genetic drive–it also opens the door to genetically engineer its elimination.
Considering the historical challenges the gay and lesbian communities have faced, and continue to face, it’s certainly not absurd to imagine a couple paying to ensure that their child is heterosexual, thereby significantly improving their chances of achieving certain socially ingrained markers of success and circumventing other barriers.
Of course, none of this is new to you … just saying, is all …
Aren’t you assuming almost a 100% correlation between genetics and homosexuality in that scenario? I think at best science has said it’s 50/50 and I would assume as tolerance and acceptance builds for homosexuality as a legitimate lifestyle choice and the total equal to heterosexuality genetics might actually have less to do with it.
Tolerating homosexuality would allow Christianity to have a much better image though. I don’t think it became one of the world’s largest religions through hate mongering, or at least I don’t like to believe so.
And on your post a while back regarding how the social acceptance of homosexuality has destroyed the community, I think the gay marriage issue has torn a kind of unspoken riff in the homosexual community. Of course, all homosexuals I know support gay marriage but many of them don’t want marriage and enjoy the kind of free form of possibilities that exist withing the queer spectrum. That gender roles and traditional family roles don’t exist and are fluid is greatly appealing to them and they would rather opt for some form of partnership benefits and not push the “we are exactly like heterosexuals except we like the same gender”
But of course to say something like that is blasphemous, and many of those individuals are the kind who are conveniently being excluded from the new clean image of GAY.
Oh yeah, given some of your thoughts on sexuality, and prolific writing on the subject over the years, you might be mildly interested in my own recent ramblings on the subject, specifically about the relationship between sex and the creative impulse in humans.
https://blog.skulk.ca/2008/10/sex-and-creative-impulse.html
What are you smoking tonight? I need some. With that logic you might also suggest that some forms aggressive forms of cancer would extinct itself too. Gay people still live in the closet. They’ll still artificially inseminate women they choose to carry their children.(read: Clay Aiken) If you believe that homosexuality is a genetic thing ( I do to), You’d have to assume it’s a mutation. Not intelligent design. So if it happened once it possible that (mutation) it would happen again. It might also be recessive. It’s ironic that the father of genetic study was Mendel, a priest.
Sorry I didn’t read SSSASKY.
My sentiments exactly.
Yes, this does assume some level of “gay gene”. If it’s something else (hormonal exposure in utero, etc), then this is just a thought experiment.
Scienkoptic – Cancer very often does not kill people before they breed — in general it kills later in life. So I don’t think you can compare the two.
Many homosexual couples are having their own biological children through sperm donation and surrogate mothers, and as homosexuality becomes more acceptable, I believe more will seek out those avenues. Also, I don’t believe homosexuality is caused by a single gene, it is more likely a result of several genes, which is why there seems to be a sexuality gradient ranging from extreme heterosexual to bisexual to extreme homosexual. So homosexuality will never be eradicated from the gene pool.
Many animals, such as penguins (which has been well documented as they mate for life), also exhibit homosexuality, and they do not have the same stigma attached to it as in humans, yet the occurance of homosexuality in penguins has remained approxiamately the same for many many years.
And an unrelated genetic tidbit, a possible monogamy gene has recently been discovered in humans! Human males can have up to 3 or 4 (I forget) copies of this one gene, and the more copies they have, the more likely they appear to have relationship/monogamy problems. This is a fairly preliminary study, but the evidence for a monogamy gene in human males is already fairly substantial according to the study.
Scienkoptic – yes, Mendel was a priest, but only because it was the ONLY way for him to recieve the level of education that his brain required. His parents were poor and unable to send him to a university, so they sent him to a monestary instead just so he could obtain a higher education. From the time he was a young boy his parents knew he was very gifted, so they did what they needed to do in order to provide adequate education for their child. Neither parent, nor Mendel was especially pious.
Maybe I screwed up on that. Ok then how bout Krabbe Disease or Tay-sachs.
It’s a genetic mutation that is typically fatal in children. The afflicted don’t usually live beyond adolescence. (there are some cases of adult onset, but rare.)
Ultimately, no matter how stupid my example was, I think your hypothesis and conclusion are still pretty crack addled.
I guess it’s dependent whether homosexuality is a mutation or a hereditary trait of some sort. I lean toward the latter notion, which is the assumption I wrote this under.
Ok, Hereditary trait. Still feel there is no way to make the leap.
The hope would be that religious bigots could extinct themselves and everyone else could live in peace for a change.
Hahaha, well, religious bigots have lots of babies, so the gene for “gullible” has plenty of staying power!
Unfortunately you are right.
Ever listen to Pat Condell?
search youtube.
He has a lot of stuff to say about religion and is spot-on.
I think everything that is f-ed up in this world has something to do with religion.
Tay-sachs is a (single gene)recessive, so a person that has only one copy of the gene, does not actually have the condition, but if they have children with another person who also carries one copy of the gene, then each of their children has a 25% chance of having the illness 50% chance of carrying it, and 25% chance of not having it and not carrying (homozygous dominant).
Tay-sachs is considered a “lethal” and there are very few single gene dominant lethals, because they generaly kill the subject before they are able to reproduce. The one well known exception is Huntington’s disease, which is a lethal dominant, but has late onset, so those with the disease generally reproduce prior to knowing they have the disease.
Back to homosexuality, many geneticist believe homosexuality is genetic, but caused by a combination of several different genes (similar to height in humans). So just like two short people can have a very tall child, two heterosexuals can have a homosexual child, and two tall people may have a short child, and two homosexuals may have a heterosexual child.
Genetics is SO complicated. With all the lethals, sublethals, recombination, replication errors, etc. it’s shocking any of us actually live to be born! (Please excuse the rants… I’m pre-med, currently taking a genetics class, which happens to be my obsession/stong point, so I could ramble forever!)
If being gay was genetic, it would have wiped itself out long before hominids were sophisticated enough to HAVE culture.
You know what is a bigger mind fuck? The effect technology has on our genetic evolution.
Children are being born bigger due to the ability to preform safe C-sections. 100 years down the road we will be unable to have children without C-section because they have progressively gotten bigger.
Same goes for glasses or any other technological advancement which allows for human being to survive and subsequently reproduce more. Borg here we come!
Mike – I think that c-section rates have more to do with Doctor’s plans for their weekends and fear of lawsuits than they do with the size of babies. If anything c-sections have caused more babies to be born at lower weights than higher.
https://www.livescience.com/health/080617-hereditary-homosexuality.html
Interesting article about the topic. I happen to think it is bs, but a step in the right direction towards figuring our what combination of genes cause homosexuality and what affect they have on straight “carriers”
Mike – Like Casey said, I don’t think you’re right, but I love the idea from a storytelling point of view!
Got to agree. Our OB insisted that my wife needed a C-section. Our daughter was breech. We didn’t want anything to do with that and got a second opinion from a Nurse-Midwife. She hooked us up with a specialist and he turned the baby. He did something called an external version. Baby came out fine naturally. Big head & all. (most babies turn head down at some point and their heads cone to conform to the bottom of the uterus.)
I heard a theory that some homosexuality might be explained by a chemical process instigated by a sibling against their unborn brother or sister. The idea is that you don’t want your little brother to compete with you for mates, so if you can make him gay that’s one less competitor in the field. I don’t know if there’s any truth to it, but it’s an interesting idea.
Just a little food for thought:
I took a class last year on human nature and evolution and wrote a research paper on the possibility of homosexuality persisting genetically based upon inclusive fitness. Essentially it says that perhaps the genetics could be passed on through family members, whom have a better chance of survival because of the extra support that gays may lend to immediate family for lack of their own biological offspring – so despite the lack of direct reproduction, their genetics could still be passed along albeit at a lesser degree. There have been some studies done to determine whether gays are likely to behave more altruistically towards immediate family, but all those results are pretty bogus, (so predicatably so i don’t know why the study was done) because of the cultural implications of taboo etc, making family life for homosexuals often full of conflict.
But theoretically, oppossed to “The Selfish Gene” you have “The Altruistic Gene.”
Interesting if nothing else.
LMAO Ashley!
How would that explain gay only childs? or first born kids?
Now on the gay gene thing senetics is so complicated i have no idea if such a gene exist, but as a lesbian myself, with a gay dad… i find it interesting that i know a couple of gay people ( men or women ) with gay dads… maybe coincidence but deffinitly interesting…
If you haven’t already seen this: https://advocate.com/news_detail_ektid64290.asp
I find it hilarious that I read this article and your post on the same day.
This is a very interesting idea. Anecdotally, my husband and I, our parents, and so on all have dark skin and dark eyes. My son has dark skin and green eyes. These green eyes probably come from Caucasian relatives 4 generations up the line. Genetics determinates are sometimes complicated and I think it would still be possible for homosexuality to pop up generations later in children of non-homosexual parents. Just as many homosexual children are currently born of non-homosexual parents.
Also, there was a comment somewhere up the line about how babies are getting bigger and soon all women will need C-sections. It’s a myth, perpetuated very strongly on the American continent. I would encourage you to read “Born in the USA” if your ever thinking of having children. It presents a really compelling argument about how a lot of the reasons that obstetricians are giving women C-sections and other risky interventions are not based on good science.
Oh course there is a gay gene. Everything comes down to genetics. If being gay is something you are born with (witch i beleave) its because a gene has been turned on. It may not have been turned on, on your fathers side for hundreds of years but its the same reason why geneticiest can turn on genes in birds so they grow scales or have longer tails.
If you have questions about the science in this post, what I have to say might clear some things up.
It is a biological fact that no person is less valuable than another, genetically, reproductively, or otherwise: Darwin demonstrated that “fitness” is a species-wide measurement, not an individual one. For any selective pressure (social or environmental), potential for survival is positively correlated with genetic and behavioral diversity for all cases. My sickle cell anemia is your resistance to malaria. Today’s isolated nerd is tomorrow’s biggest sperm donor. It is therefore diversity, above heterosexuality, that makes us successful as a species. If a disease wiped out all the XX-chromosomed people on earth (aka women), our species would persist. Natural selection “chooses” freaks, geeks and deviants, just so we can get out of evolutionary predicaments like that! That is why real evolutionary scholars abhor eugenics. It’s not just a wacky human rights idea that all people have inherent value: that all people have *equal* value at any given time is a brutal fact of nature.
Putting his circular logic and “just-so stories” aside, Larratt implies that he’s just letting natural selection do the work in his imaginary future. But we don’t need to imagine what would happen if gays weren’t discriminated against. Many societies throughout history and prehistory have accepted all kinds of sexual expression and homosexuality has persisted across all known cultures, societies, and epocs. Through all her discrimination, her brutality, and her horror, mother nature apparently sees more use for gays than Zentastic does — she may beat them up, but at least she keeps them around!
At face value what Larratt is saying here is that in his mind, if it weren’t for helpful discrimination from straights, gay people would just butt-fuck themselves into oblivion and that would be the biggest favor they could ever do humanity.
But that can’t be right. This guy has done more to combat prejudice in the world than I will probably ever do in my whole life. And I understood that he even knew some of these genetically inferior “homosexuals” himself. There must be a coherent, overarching satire in this post that I’m missing. There must be something here other than “By fighting for equality, gay people have actually argued for their own demise because unless we force them to reproduce, they cant! Ha ha! All their contributions as human beings could never be as useful as their disappearance! Ha ha! What irony!” Because that’s not ironic, that’s hateful and ignorant. And I’ve come to expect more from this blog than that.
…I don’t even know where to begin. While being gay may be genetic, it’s never been said to be “hereditary”.
You seem to be attempting to wax intellectual about something you have no idea about. You obviously have no insight into “gay culture” or what it means in society today to be in a committed homosexual relationship.
Kat, is there something fundamentally different about homosexual relationships versus hetrosexual ones? Because I was under the impression that the differences are minimal with the exception that the odds of biological reproduction between the pair is radically reduced… Which should in time reduce the frequency of any genetic markers for the trait if it can be passed on.
@ Marjorie:
I guess I might explain gay first-borns and only kids by using any number of explanations: genetic, non-genetic influence in the womb, nurture/culture… I was just trying to suggest a cause that was biological and non-genetic. How about this for another explanation? Perhaps certain people carry genes which produce super fertile women and gay men (and/or vice versa). I would expect the answer is a complex patchwork.
Post a Comment