There is another objection to the notion of a genetically
induced homosexuality. An unreproductive behavior
cannot be genetic and also continue to exist in the population. According to mainstream genetics,
genetically enforced homosexuality (exclusively same-sex
sex) would die out of the population in several generations.
Here’s how. A gene is retained in the gene pool when an average of at least one child is born to every
adult having that gene (one child per person). As unlikely
as it sounds, surveys show that of persons classifying
themselves as exclusively homosexual, one in five has a child. At that rate, a homosexual gene, or
genes, could not be replaced.
But most homosexuals may be married (see Chapter Two). Wouldn’t this preserve any homosexual
gene or genes? Not necessarily. A married homosexual is (usually) bisexual. According to surveys, bisexuals
have an average
of 1.25 children each. On its own, that’s enough to replace the adult gene or genes, but the
average total number of children produced by bisexuals and exclusive homosexuals still comes to less than
one child per person
- 0.9. At that rate, any homosexual gene or genes would still slowly but inevitably breed
out of the population.
Sociobiologists, almost the only group of academics who argue seriously that all human behavior is
by genes, have great difficulty accounting for the persistence of SSA in the population. They
try to argue that genes causing male SSA would also exist in the sisters of gays, and that the homosexual
male would help ensure those genes were passed on by helping his sister and her family - for example, babysitting,
and later helping with money and resources. But these arguments are unusually weak. Those with
SSA have much weaker ties with their biological families than average.
I don’t disagree with you, but:
1. Gays really have been “out” for about a generation. Before that, they generally had a double life. One generation is not long enough to breed them out.
2. Being queer could be a genetic predisposition, like psycophrenia or some depressions. Many, many people who have the genetic predisposition don’t end up symptomatic.
3. My hunch is it is a combination of genetic and environment, just like most things.
Current research suggests that homosexuality among men may be caused, at least in part, by hormones encountered in utero. The hormone levels correlate to the number of male children the mother has had. Men who have several older brothers are much more likely to be gay than men who are first-born males.
This could provide a genetic advantage by minimizing fighting among males from the same gene pool, i.e. one is submissive and less likely to compete for dominance, but still available to participate food gathering etc.
Evolution is about the survival of genes, not the survival of a specific organism.
I have been saying such for years. Homosexuals who do not reproduce cannot pass on their genes and even the ones who do reproduce, do so at a rate that is so low that they would fade away after only a few generations.
If the gene were recessive, requiring two copies for expression, then it could persist in the population. If it also had another beneficial result then it would be even more likely to persist. I am not saying I agree that homosexuality is genetic (I think it’s far more complex than that) however just because a gene keeps one from being reproductive in some instances, does not mean it will die out.