Does More Social Acceptance Eventually Mean Fewer Gays?
Posted in Unfounded Speculation
on February 3rd, 2010 by
Stephen DeGrace
Topics:
Crystal Ball,
Gay Stuff
"Randy McDonald wonders, like Sam, whether if homosexuality is genetic, there will be fewer gays born as fewer masquerade as (breeding) straight people and pass on their genes, himself suspecting that since it seems to by a byproduct of female sibling's reproductive strategies--at least among queer men--that it won't matter that much" (quoting Randy). I respond:
Homosexuality is clearly organic in nature, and there is overwhelming evidence for a hereditary component, which strongly implicates the genes. Remember that genes have a quality called "penetrance" (look it up on Wikipedia). The gene(s) implicated in homosexuality must overall promote their own transmission provided their penetrance for the 100% homosexual phenotype is below a certain threshold. The ubiquity of homosexuality amongst mammals and birds is an important piece of the puzzle, as is the high degree of bisexual potential of non-exclusively-monosexual members of many species including our own.
I don't think it's necessarily proven that homosexuality in males or females is exclusively X-linked or due to a single gene.
I have often had this same thought as you, Randy, and I'm intrigued by it. I think that an acceptance of a homosexual lifestyle by society may have the unintended consequence of changing the proportion of homosexuals over time... because in many societies social pressure and custom makes sexual preference almost moot to reproduction; now, all of a sudden, in some societies, it is a huge factor in reproductive success.
Comments:
There are 4 comments on this item.
On February 3rd, 2010
Stephen DeGrace
wrote:
About the ancient Greeks and Romans: It was socially acceptable for you to have sex with other dudes, within certain limits (e.g., free men don't take it up the butt, there may have to be a large age difference, one party is a slave and the free man is clearly dominant, that kind of idea), but you were also socially expected to have a wife and breed, and I think it's fair to say most did regardless of their preferences.
In fairness, there have always been exclusively homosexual couples. The question is whether the prevalence in our society is unprecedented or not, which I would argue it probably is, as many choose this lifestyle who would not in ages past.
On February 5th, 2010
Stephen DeGrace
wrote:
And it doesn't matter even if the trait is X-linked... if the gene has a high enough penetrance that the cost to a woman in terms of lost grandchildren from the proportion of her male offspring likely to be uninterested in reproductive acts is greater than whatever benefit it confers in terms of successful production of grandchildren and great-grandchildren, it will tend to reduce its own frequency in the population.
If the consequences of the 100% homosexual phenotype to reproduction become more pronounced, mutations directly to it or to other genes reducing its penetrance will prosper even if they cut into its benefits, creating a new balance and altering its properties and hence the proportion of gay males born over time.
On February 12th, 2010 Karl Grutzner wrote:
Intresting Post Steve, It was worth the read.. anything that requires you to use a little part of your brain (like this did for me) is good in my books.
Post a Comment
* Required field, your email will not be posted.
On February 3rd, 2010 Stephen DeGrace
wrote:
Heh, in so many ways, public acceptance of male homosexual relationships is harmful to the supply of future Catholic priests... ;)