Gay Gene Questions??

On 10/15/2004 rai76 brought up the news of possibly finding the gay gene in this thread. If you missed the news article you can read about it here

www.timesonline.co.uk...

According to the research the gay gene is passed on the X chromosome that men receive from their mothers. The research also found that this gene made the mothers more fertile so they had more offspring and the result was more gay children.

So this brings two things to my mind. The first of which is if this is true then eventually over much time the human race will cease to exist. With the gay gene making mothers more fertile they will pass the �gay gene� on to more offspring than mothers without. This effect will increase in each passing generation and eventually become more and more common.

The second of which is, Is the gay gene solely for men? The study claims that the gay gene only effects men and just makes women more fertile. So are lesbians left out in the cold without a biologic reason for their condition which relegates lesbianism to a Darwinian Paradox that any genes that favor homosexuality ought to have died out through natural selection, as those that inherited them had fewer and fewer offspring.

Hate to get all metaphysical here, but my own belief is that souls are typically either masculine of feminine. When reborn, even if in an "opposite" form, perhaps they retain much of that identity, and thus gravitate towards it, despite their physical form.

Likewise, some souls simply don't have a set aspect, so this can manifest in bisexuality after rebirth.

Again, just my own ideas on it...

I can say that my brother is the only gay in the family (that we know of), so I don't see any kind of a trail for the gene....

Not so sure Darwin applies though... My Chihuahuas (both female) occassionally have a go with each other, hehe... Obviously, if it is a genetic issue, it doesn't seem to be going anywhere...

If it WAS genetic though, then that raises all kinds of other issues. Would it then be acceptable to refer to it as a "disease" or "genetic disorder"? Man, that's a can of worms....

[edit on 22-10-2004 by Gazrok]

There was a theory postulated some time ago that homosexuality arose as a natural control to stem over population. The examples cited included the rise of homosexuality within the Greek and Roman cities of old. (Large cities, dwindeling resources.) Now I know I'll catch some flak for this, cuz' I don't have a source. But I read about this some time ago before the advent of the internet. Hope this is enough.

[edit on 22-10-2004 by Der Kapitan]

I have read through all the scientific data on this subject.

My conclusion is, that being attracted to the same sex, is a completely natural phenomonon.

Take that conclusion to mean whatever you like.

Originally posted by Gazrok
If it WAS genetic though, then that raises all kinds of other issues. Would it then be acceptable to refer to it as a "disease" or "genetic disorder"? Man, that's a can of worms....

You are very correct. If there is definelty a gay gene that can be pinpointed the religous fanatics will push for classifying "gayness" as a disease and that could lead to all sorts of issues.

If the study stated above is true can anyone see any errors in my logic that the gay gene would (A) eventually lead to the extinction of the human race and (B) Lesbians are relegated to a Darwinian Paradox?

I've read a lot of statistics that say women usually find other women attractive and enjoy looking at them, but don't usually act on it. I didn't really believe it until once when I found a "gotcha" website that gave a sex quiz and mailed the answers back to me. Perhaps you'd also be surprised to find out that many of the girls you know think about women a lot more than you'd imagine. I associate lesbianism with free-minded people, lesbians are always trying new things.

Originally posted by BlackJackal

You are very correct. If there is definelty a gay gene that can be pinpointed the religous fanatics will push for classifying "gayness" as a disease and that could lead to all sorts of issues.

I agree, that is a strong possibilty.

If the study stated above is true can anyone see any errors in my logic that the gay gene would (A) eventually lead to the extinction of the human race and (B) Lesbians are relegated to a Darwinian Paradox?

I can see one error. Humans have a very strong survival instinct, as do most animals. We are also, on occasion, very intelligent. We are also very emotional, so are most animals, if not all. We have the uncanny ability to do something we really do not want to do, if we really have to. So if the World ended up populated by, only, people who are attracted to their own sex(and thets be realistic, that is not going to happen). I think humans would decide to go against their sexual attractions just to further their own survival.

Edited to add: So. no, I do not believe it would result in the extiction of the Human race.

[edit on 22-10-2004 by Kriz_4]

[edit on 22-10-2004 by Kriz_4]

Females receive an X chromosome from their moms too (I'm pretty sure, and another X from pop), so I don't think Lesbianism is necessarily a paradox. Perhaps they goofed on the details a bit...

As for extinction...it's been going on with humans and other animals for thousands of years, and we've only boomed, so I guess there is some fault in the logic after all. As cited, the Romans and Greeks accepted it more (and it was far more rampant) than it is today, and yet we are faced with OVER not UNDER population...

From all the details that I have seen I have come to the preliminary conclusion that homosexuality is part genetic and part choice. What those parts are and in what percentages they are in.

Homosexuality is a very interesting subject when you talk in biologic terms and very heated in religous terms. With that said I think this study raises more questions than it answers and gives both sides of the debate more fodder to play with.

Gazrok, you are correct that females do get the passed down X chromosome but the problem is if it makes them gay then they will not reproduce and the gene will die off.

Originally posted by shbaz
I've read a lot of statistics that say women usually find other women attractive and enjoy looking at them, but don't usually act on it. I didn't really believe it until once when I found a "gotcha" website that gave a sex quiz and mailed the answers back to me. Perhaps you'd also be surprised to find out that many of the girls you know think about women a lot more than you'd imagine. I associate lesbianism with free-minded people, lesbians are always trying new things.

Now I can believe this, I know several women who are OK being sexual with other women. I tend to think that bi-sexuality is present in the majority of women and it only takes a little push to make them lesbians. Again this is a personal belief with nothing to back it up other than my meandering experience.

I think the "gay gene" is being overplayed a bit. It *CAN'T* be dominant, because if it were, half the male population would be gay and 1/4th the female population would be gay.

Therefore, it's a recessive gene (only 10%) and probably not one but several genes.

As to the "women finding other women beautiful/attractive", that's a social issue and not a genetic one. When ads are selling "sexy" it's the partially clothed woman we get. We get lots of nude women in ads (but not men.) In porno flicks, when they want to show hot loving or tender scenes, it's always between two women.

... and so on and so forth.

If we did the same thing only with MEN instead of women, you'd find that suddenly a lot more men seemed bisexual.