[RonF]

"And how is the gene passed along since gays can't reproduce?"

Not all genetically-determined characteristics are the product of one gene with a binary solution set. There are many such that are the product of multiple genes, and where the genes themselves can be in more than two states. To oversimplify, one could posit a genetic set up where there are two genes contributing; each parent might be 40% influenced towards being gay, but function as heterosexuals. Their child might then get the characteristics of both and be 80% influenced towards being gay.

There is no proof that this kind of thing exists with regards to sexual orientation. But there are mechanisms that would allow such a thing to be dormant in one or both parents, only to come up as dominant in their offspring.

[RAT Patrol]

Yes....but over time the math doesn't work. It would eventually be erradicated because anyone who actually was gay could not reproduce -- unless they are at least able to function heterosexually too.

Type 0 blood is recessive. You must have two 0 genes to have 0 blood. Your parents can have A type blood -- dominate -- and you can have 0 only if they have an A/0 gene combination.

Now if everyone with type 0 blood could not reproduce then the percentage of people with type 0 blood would be drastically reduced until it was pretty much eliminated because the only reproducers in society could -- at best -- provide a 25 percent chance of having a baby with type 0 blood.

My point is...even with your theory gayness would eventually be non-existent if it were strictly genetic. Perhaps another analogy would have been hair color with a light and dark potential -- but I doubt sexuality is a hetero/homo potential type case. Still, without being able to reproduce, time would not be their friend.

Now if you argue that it is a genetic abnormality or anomaly your theory might work. Rare diseases and disorders fit into that category. But we do not call them normal and desirable. I doubt anyone would be comfortable putting gayness in that category.

It has been awhile since I have studied genetics but that's the way I remember it.

Besides, then what about rape or other undesirable sexual behaviors. Are they genetic? At what point is a person just responsible for making their own behavioral choices?

[newgeezer]

That's all very interesting, but -- and, not that it's genetic but, if it were -- it could be recessive, too.

;-)

[RAT Patrol]

dominate = dominant (I couldn't think of it at the time for some stupid reason, LOL)

[Clint N. Suhks]

To oversimplify, one could posit a genetic set up where there are two genes contributing; each parent might be 40% influenced towards being gay, but function as heterosexuals. Their child might then get the characteristics of both and be 80% influenced towards being gay.

There’s absolutely no proof of this. In fact, the twins studies prove just the opposite. Identical twins have never had a 100% concurrence rate, at best only a 0-50+%.