Homosexuality and Evolution

[LuisDantas]

There is a point to letting society give us some indication of what it expects.

Otherwise, how would we know how to be respectful?

 

[Nous]

Hmm. I was always taught that sexuality was a sliding scale and possible to change naturally throughout one's life. Due to the fluid nature of human sexuality. If Biologists are not using this model in their studies, why? It seems to me then that perhaps they should work in tandem with sexologists.

I have the same questions as you do. There is no rational reason for the methodologies in the genetic research to be premised on binary sexual orientation categories. And, as I said, I seriously doubt many of the researchers truly believe that sexual orientation in humans is a strict gay/straight binary. It might be that (some) researchers consider the binary premise “good enough” for the purpose of performing genetic studies. A worse possibility is that (some) researchers might consider the binary premise to simply be more likely to yield genetic associations--and they would be right, just like one would be more likely to find a correlation between students’ sock “color” and grades if one turns all possible colors into a binary of “light” and “dark”.

The earliest biological research on sexual orientation was premised on the sexual orientation binary and analogized to sex differences--and it seems as though the genetic researchers merely took up this program. Simon LeVay, in his study on a particular area of the hypothalamus (INAH3), claimed to have found that the “volume” of this area in “gay” men (he didn’t know the sexual orientation or sexual histories of the men whose brains he was examining; he only knew that they died of an opportunistic AIDS disease) more closely resembled that of straight women than that of straight men. Practically every aspect of LeVay’s study can be, and has been, criticized. It’s a stretch to call his study “science”--but his findings made lots of headlines written by journalists who wouldn’t know a scientific study from a frying pan. And the same sort of reasoning--analogizing gay men to straight women, and lesbians to straight men--has been used in a variety of other sorts of studies, such as one on a similar area in the brains of sheep (among whom males mounting other males is quite common), and a finger-length study, and a perspiration smell-test study, and others

And, of course, one cannot deny that there is (or at least has been) a great deal of political motivation behind these studies, as the “findings” (and the binary premise) play into the immutability defense--as Kenji notes in his article, “Gays [and their “straight” supporters] often defend their homosexuality by characterizing it as an immutable trait.” Unfortunately, even in the recent Supreme Court decision in Obergefell Justice Kennedy declared that “sexual orientation is . . . immutable”. Gee, what if we “discover” that sexual orientation isn’t immutable--does that make it constitutional to deprive same-sex couples and their children of the rights, privileges and responsibilities that come with the couple’s participation in civil marriage? There is absolutely no reason that equal rights for any couple and their children should depend on the assumed immutability of the couple’s sexual orientation.

Anyway, in the scheme of things, the idea of sexual orientation is a rather recent phenomenon. As recently as the 1970s, the American Psychiatric Association considered any degree of same-sex attraction to be a mental disorder--and a significant portion of the US population still does. Nevertheless, what happened in the US in the past 20 years, and especially since 2004, seems to me to show that people's views and opinions relating to sexual orientation can change extremely quickly. So perhaps the those involved in genetic and biological research on sexual orientation will rapidly revise their ideas too.

 

[Nous]

There is a genetic component to homosexuality

Do you know of a study that (1) draws such a conclusion from its findings, and (2) is not premised on the assumption that sexual orientation is binary? Do you believe that all humans are either 6 or 0 on the Kinsey Scale?

. . . some evidence that it has links to increased female fertility in the family.

The hypothesis of higher fecundity of the mothers and aunts (but not sisters) of gay men is apparently gotten from a single 2004 study involving a questionnaire filled out by 98 men who claimed to be homosexual and 100 men who claimed to be heterosexual in Northern Italy, a population in which there is “low general fecundity”. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1691850/pdf/15539346.pdf Evidently there was no attempt to confirm the answers given on the questionnaires as to numbers of relatives. As far as I know, the study has not been replicated in any other area. It is another study premised on the idea that any degree of same-sex attraction is a deviation from the norm of heterosexuality.

The authors discuss the problem that the model of a single-locus X-linked allele that would explain both of their findings of higher incidence of homosexual men in the maternal line, and higher fecundity of mothers and aunts of homosexual men, predicts that this X-linked allele would be very common in the population. Yet, the authors tell us (based on findings from questionnaires) that homosexuality is very uncommon. The authors but did not attempt to construct a genetic model that accounts for their data.

The authors also note:

Finally, we emphasize that over 79% of the variance in male sexual orientation in our sample remains unaccounted for by the factors of an excess of maternal homosexual kin and number of older brothers. This is consistent with theoretical and empirical studies, which show that individual experiences are a powerful determinant of human sexual behaviour and self-identity (Churchill 1967; Enquist et al. 2002; for other species, see D’Udine & Alleva 1983; Hogan & Bolhius 1994). Indeed, it is still possible that the higher incidence of homosexuality in the maternal line results from culturally, rather than genetically, inherited traits.​

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

There is a point to letting society give us some indication of what it expects.

Otherwise, how would we know how to be respectful?

I think you're being a bit pedantic with what I said. Culturally enforced heteronormativity has nothing to do with expectations of civility.

 

[LuisDantas]

I think you're being a bit pedantic with what I said. Culturally enforced heteronormativity has nothing to do with expectations of civility.

That is not what I was talking about, though.

Not acting on, and sometimes not even admitting to oneself, attraction to various people who are taboo for one reason or another has a lot to do with civility. It would be very socially cumbersome, perhaps even dangerous, if we had no reign whatsoever on those attractions.

 

[Etritonakin]

I recently heard a statistic -that over half of young people today identify themselves as other than heterosexual.

Were they all born that way?

Can they chose their way?

Can others encourage their way?

If the percentage has actually changed over time -why?

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

I recently heard a statistic -that over half of young people today identify themselves as other than heterosexual.

Were they all born that way?

Can they chose their way?

Can others encourage their way?

If the percentage has actually changed over time -why?

It's more likely that it's because society is more open to and becoming more accepting of non-heteronormative views of and experiences of sexuality. For centuries, a certain heterosexual paradigm was strictly socially enforced in Western culture and so people were put into the position of having to suppress their desires on pain of death. Now that that threat is largely gone, people are more comfortable admitting to having certain attractions. Bisexuality/pansexuality seems to have been/be extremely common in humanity in general. It might actually naturally occur more often than strict heterosexuality or homosexuality, which are mostly socio-cultural constructs in the first place.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I recently heard a statistic -that over half of young people today identify themselves as other than heterosexual.

I find that very doubtful. And even if we do have a good number, it still doesn't explain what or why. It may be nothing more than ditching a binary model and replacing it with a new approach where such labels and terms are worthless and irrelevant. Or it may be they are just more comfortable with experimenting. But this "over half" is very doubtful.

 

[Midnight Rain]

Hi all!
I'm really sorry if this is in the wrong place, because i'm new to this website.
Let me just get to the point then...

I think that if homosexuality is a genetically inherited trait, like most people believe, then it might be a major point against evolution. Of course, it might not be at all (which is why I wan't to debate about it).

I also think that if evolution is real (please don't tell me to stop being so ignorant, because I know that I am) then it might disprove the fact that homosexuality is genetically inherited and instead a choice someone makes (sue me).

My point is, if you agree with evolution and believe that homosexuality is genetically inherited, explain to me how they could work in tandem.


Please don't call me names like "Homophobe" (I'm not at all scared or disgusted by gay people) "Bigot" (I really want to hear your opinion) or "Ignorant" (I've covered that already). I won't call you names, you won't call me names. []YES []NO

P.S. Please don't insult what I believe in either. I just want to have a friendly conversation.

What is genetically inherited is the possibility of being gay. For example the vast majority of homosexuals that have children have heterosexual children.

Being "born with it" and having a "gay gene" that is inherited specifically like a dominant or passive trait isn't the same thing. I think that is the first mistake made in the line of reasoning you have presented.

For example men are more and more likely to be gay depending on where they were born in the family lineup. The more boys that have been born before you from the same mother increases your chances of being gay. It has been speculated that having an older father during time of conception plays a role but this hasn't been demonstrated to be anything more than a slight coloration. There are also links to the X gene passed down through women that correspond with high rates of fertility in the female line.

The latter is the most common and accepted explanation of the data we have at hand. Thus a line of X chromosomes that induce higher fertility and have the benifit of giving these highly fertile women gay brothers (which historically have been found to be more of an asset to her own children than her heterosexual brothers) would be a double benefit. Secondly if the woman passes on her genes she only as a 1/4th percent chance of passing on the "homosexual" gene to a male child. Thus is wouldn't impact the population extensively.

Epigentics are also a new and exciting field of research that have asked questions and opened possible answers for further understanding why some people are gay and some are not even within the same family.

 

[Etritonakin]

I find that very doubtful. And even if we do have a good number, it still doesn't explain what or why. It may be nothing more than ditching a binary model and replacing it with a new approach where such labels and terms are worthless and irrelevant. Or it may be they are just more comfortable with experimenting. But this "over half" is very doubtful.

Just something I heard -may not be accurate -it's not as if they asked everyone.

 

[Etritonakin]

It's more likely that it's because society is more open to and becoming more accepting of non-heteronormative views of and experiences of sexuality. For centuries, a certain heterosexual paradigm was strictly socially enforced in Western culture and so people were put into the position of having to suppress their desires on pain of death. Now that that threat is largely gone, people are more comfortable admitting to having certain attractions. Bisexuality/pansexuality seems to have been/be extremely common in humanity in general. It might actually naturally occur more often than strict heterosexuality or homosexuality, which are mostly socio-cultural constructs in the first place.

I think people want to have sex.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

I think people want to have sex.

There is that, as well.