The 'gay gene' contradicts evolution.

Think about it.

Gay people can't reproduce (ignoring modern technology), hence, they cannot pass on this gene to their offspring.

Hence, being gay must be psychological (doesn't mean it's a choice though).

Spoiler

Bump

To quote Kinsey using an analogy you may be familiar with, the world is not divided into sheep and goats.

And even those who are only attracted to their own gender - and there are far fewer of those than people attracted to more than one gender - are quite capable of reproducing.

(Well, it's not sexual health, is it?)

Reply 3

Jesus Christ!

Original post by unprinted

Without modern technology, how on earth can they reproduce?

(Yeah didn't know where else to put it. "Debate" seemed better. Haha.)

Reply 4

unprinted

News just in: penis in vagina sex can produce babies regardless of the sexual orientation of the people doing it.

Reply 5

Jesus Christ!

Original post by unprinted

News just in: penis in vagina sex can produce babies regardless of the sexual orientation of the people doing it.

So if being gay wasn't tabooed in the past, we might not have it today?

Reply 6

kimkarsd

not really, it could be recessive. or a random mutation. either way, there is no hard evidence of a gay gene.

Reply 7

unprinted

Original post by Jesus Christ!

So if being gay wasn't tabooed in the past, we might not have it today?

No.

Same sex behaviour is known in lots of other animals, and they don't have any taboos.

Reply 8

kimkarsd

another thing, provided enough people can reproduce in the environment, then it can be ok. so then genes for cystic fibrosis mean evolution is **** then?

Reply 9

Anonymous #1

Original post by Jesus Christ!

Without modern technology, how on earth can they reproduce?

(Yeah didn't know where else to put it. "Debate" seemed better. Haha.)

*Not passing judgement on any opinions or making any judgements myself, just offering food for thought. I also appologise for any insensitive or inaccurate words, terms or ideas. I mean no offense to anybody by any of what I say.*

The idea that homosexuals can't produce relys on a couple of modern ideas- breeding out of love, and monogamy. We currently have the idea that people pair up exclusivly and then tose pairs breed. Obviously following this logic gay couples wouldn't reproduce- male+male and female+female just cant make babies.However if we look at reproduction as a seperate need it is possible to ignore your pairing in order to produce ofspring. In this case gay individuals would be able to breed and pass on any geens (including a "gay" gene if there is one).
It is also possible if you ignore monogamy (havig a single mate) that bisexuals would be able to have both male and female partners or that it would be less taboo to have a same sex mate along with an opposite sex one- increasing the chances of gay individuals passing on genes.

It is also interesting to look at penguins. Male penguins are known to pair up and tend to rocks as a mother penguin would an egg or even to adopt abandoned or lost eggs. It is obviously not possible for these male pairs to concieve their own ofspring in order to pass on genetics so, in this example, if there were a "gay gene" t would likely be randomly occuring rather than hereditary in any way.

I believe there have also been differences noted in the brains of gay sheep compared to straight sheep. This doesn't really suggest anything either way on the surface one wayor the other as both psychology and gene could result in this. Just interesting to know.

You may also be interseted in something called "situation homosexuality" where formerly straight male inmates "turn gay" due to their environment. This isn't necesarrily actual homosexuality and may be entirely down to power structure and using sex and sexual ideas as a show of power or ownership, rather than out of true feelings or attraction or love.

Also think about where psychology comes from. Although there may not be a specific "gay" gene, how we think is down to the structure and function of our brain and that is controlled by two things- genetics and experience. Even saying that it is not a "gay gene", it could still be down to genetics at least in part.

It's a difficult subject to talk about and look into since there is such a fear of being insensitive, but it is interesting none the less. I had to learn about it at college for Alevels and it is more complex than onemight think.
Please excuse this being somewhat hard to follow, it is late, my brain is tired and this is something I haven't looked into much for quite some time.

Bonus fact: Your stomach has it's own brain- that's why you get gut feelings or feel ill when you are nervous- your stomach brain is doing it! :smile:

Reply 10

Anonymous #1

Original post by unprinted

No.

Same sex behaviour is known in lots of other animals, and they don't have any taboos.

Not necesarrily true. Animals can have complex social structures and ideas. (I have even heard rumours of homophobic penguins in a zoo shunning a male penguin pair.)
There is a study where monkeys were punished as a group for any of them climbing a ladder. Whe a new monkey was introduced and tried to climb the ladder they would be attacked by the rest of the group to avoid the punishment. Eventually all of the monkeys that had been punished were swapped out but all the other monkeys still attacked anybody who tried to climb the ladder despite not having any good reason to. In this case the ladder climbing would be taboo.
A bit like how children can pick up biases from their parents and be agressive to specific individuals despite having no reason to themselves.

Also worth questioning in a lot of the animal cases if it is actually seen by the animals as being gay or just non-reproductive sex. Some animals are known to have sex with other species even. Dolphins for instance will rape other sea life and even humans- though i wonder if animals even have a concept of rape...

Still a good point about homosexuality in nature, and doesn't necessarily disprove your point. More just extra info.

Reply 11

kimkarsd

op is a fool, he doesn't get evolutionary theory.

Reply 12

1010marina

There was actually an article about this fairly recently, either New Scientist or BBC, I'll track it down and edit my post, but the gist of it was this:

Gay men tend to have slightly more reproductive female relatives. If there is a gay gene, it's thought to boost fertility among women somehow, which means the lack of a child from the man can be offset by the extra children.

Besides that, in many ancient cultures like Greece, homosexual relationships with older men were a rite of passage into adulthood. They would still have children and get married to women.

Reply 13

Jesus Christ!

Original post by kimkarsd

another thing, provided enough people can reproduce in the environment, then it can be ok. so then genes for cystic fibrosis mean evolution is **** then?

Original post by kimkarsd

op is a fool, he doesn't get evolutionary theory.

What don't I get exactly?

People with cystic fibrosis can still reproduce dumbass.

A gay couple cannot (unless they still have intercourse with the opposite attraction anyways).

Original post by unprinted

No.

Same sex behaviour is known in lots of other animals, and they don't have any taboos.

That's not what I meant.

Consider this (alternate) scenario where being gay was accepted in the past:

Year 1000 (random year). Gays are actually accepted into society. Ideally, we are now civilized enough to only want have children with the gender we are attracted to.

They marry their preferred gender. They can only adopt/foster kids since technology is not advance.

Fast forward to 2016.

Since gay people could not reproduce, the gene could not be passed on. Hence, the gay gene does not exist today. Of course, there may be a new mutation reintroducing the gene but this is unlikely and if it happened, it would probably die out quickly.

Therefore, we sort of needed the taboo.

Just give up now.

there are straight people who are unable to reproduce, rendering your point irrelevant

Reply 16

Anonymous #1

Original post by fnsb

there are straight people who are unable to reproduce, rendering your point irrelevant

He's assuming that a "gay gene" would only pass from gay people onto biological children and that gay people pair up with the opposite sex and do not breed (since they can't with their chosen partner) and do not pass on genes. This is a big assumption and not true in reality for many reasons, but would in theory mean that a "gay gene" as described above would not be able to be passed on at all.

Although there are some straight people who cannot pass on their genes for whatever reason, it is only some. The majority of the population can still pass on their genes and would thus be able to pass on a "straight" gene.