If Homosexuality was Genetic?

Question

IF Homosexuality was Genetic?

Wouldnt it have died out very quickly,

1.IT serves no purpose to humans in terms of reproducing and putting the best of genes out there, and we know according to science unuseful things die out.

2.It would be a recessive gene, so eventually the gene would be so rare, that anyone who has it would be wiped from the face of the Earth within a 100 years, since they cant pass the genes down.....

what do yall think?

Also, If It was genetic wouldnt twins with the same genotype always be both homosexual and not sometiems one and the another (Homo and Hetero)

Answer 1

Maybe that's how species eventually become extinct!

Answer 2

Huh? Homosexuals can and do have children. Why wouldn't they? The rest of your "argument" is just as silly, but it's dead in the water because you seem to think that g*y people don't reproduce. People that try to find "scientific" support for their prejudices usually look pretty foolish, your question is a fine example of same.

Answer 3

I've heard of a sociobiological hypothesis where a genotype coding for a tendency towards homosexuality is beneficial. In communal populations, sometimes parents need assistance in raising offspring for them to survive. A g*y man produces no offspring and thus saves on resources for the group and he can assist his relatives. It mathematically works out as a viable strategy.

Answer 4

think u are missing some points there.

just because  a gene is recessive, it does not mean that it will disapper from the gene pool. u know that alleles are usually alternate form of same gene. now lets assume that homosexuality is due to a recessive gene. we can have three genotype possible (assuming that there are only two alleles);

genotype- (dominant, recessive)  phenotype- straight

genotype(dominant, dominant) phenotype- straight

genotype (recessive, recessive) phenotype - homosexual

now lets assume that g**s are sterlie( which is not true) lest assume that nomore will a g*y man marry a women and have children

but what about the ppl with genotype (dominant, recessive)????

they are straight and ofcoure they will have children. so the recessive is passed on to the offspring as well which ensures the sustainance of the recessive gene in the gene pool.

(note- this is just a simplified example )

so jsut because a gene is recessive, it doesnot imply that it will disappear. there are heterozygous genotype that ensures its place in the gene pool.

thats why we have genetic counsellrs. they help wilth couples who have family history of a particular disease.

they fear that thier child might have high risk of being recessive homozygous which is undesirable.

i can go on but space and time limits me

Answer 5

1) It does serve a purpose by decreasing population growth.  Overcrowding can be the downfall of a species.  Less reproduction means fewer offspring, and fewer offspring means less competition for resources and a healthier population.

2)  Blue eyes are also encoded on a recessive gene.  I don't see them dying out.  Recessive DOES NOT mean the gene is "rare".  It simply means that when the dominant gene is present, the recessive trait is inactive... not that the gene is lacking.

Answer 6

nothing in life is either 100% biology or cultural. There may be a genetic component to it, but that doesn't mean that culture doesn't influence it to some degree.

Answer 7

There was a study that pointed out g*y males made great uncles. That while their own genes weren't being passed along, they were nurturing within their family and their gene pool. Hence odds of their family genes being passed along increased.

Answer 8

Are you going to keep asking this silly question until someone agrees with you?

Answer 9

No. You are thinking about the trait, not the genes that contribute to that trait. For example, what if the genes behind homosexuality gave advantages when in other combinations? An analogue is some debilitating brain disorders which occur in Ashkenazi descendants. It has been shown that those genes, in a different combination, correlate with significantly higher intelligence, explaining the high proportion of geniuses among Ashkenazi.

In fact, there are studies which show that the mothers and aunties of g*y men have significantly more children.

Also, of course, there is kin selection. The families of homosexual people may have been / be advantaged (eg. more providers, more parenting, expendable warriors, neutralising rival men as lovers, etc). Also, many homosexual people do have children of their own. Along the lines of game theory, competing head to head in the same reproductive strategy isn't always the best idea for the participants. Different strategies should arise, be advantaged at first, and reach equilibrium.

This is all a simplification because studies show that hetero vs homosexuality isn't black and white. There is a very wide grey area in between. Your last statement is arguing against the assumption which you asked as to make at the start. But something as complex as sexuality isn't likely to be purely genetic, just genetically influenced (if it is).

Answer 10

homosexuality wouldn't be able to be genetic.

if homosexuality was passed on through genes that would mean the homosexuals would have to produce offspring. now of course thats possible if they have children before they admit they are homesexual but as you said it would be recessive and would require both parents to have it in order for it to be on the phenotype.

so yes it would die out very quickly, which goes to show you that it isn't genetic. i believe its something people are born with but its not in their genes.. its something deeper than that.

Answer 11

I disagree that it serves no purpose.  It could be nature's way of slowing reproduction during heavily populated eras.

Answer 12

Blondes aren't going to die out, that was a hoax.

There's a theory that a g*y gene could be passed along as a recessive if it had another function, like making men better parents.

But, it's probably just a slight abnormality of brain development caused by an hormone exposure in utero. This has some backing, as finger length (also affected by uterine hormone) shows a non-typical development in g*y men. Examining the brains of g*y men have shown them to differ slightly too, so it's nearly all biology at work,  just not genetics.

Identical twins with the same DNA don't develop the same illnesses. If one has something like asthma, there's a good chance the other won't, as environment affects it to. It just gives a predisposition.

Answer 13

the question begs itself. is it genetic? no it is not! there is no scientific evidence for this assumption. the nature-nurture debate is futile.

Answer 14

Wrong, wrong and wrong.

First, many populations carry a genetic load that, if not directly deleterious to reproduction, are carried.Things do not necessarily have to serve reproductive purpose, they just must not impede reproduction.

Recessive genes are all over the place in the gene pool. You carry some. Again, if not directed fully against reproduction, they will be carried in the population. Think earlobes.

Wrong again. From what we understand of development, no.

And lastly people, it is not a form of populational control!!

Answer 15

There is no real evidence that homosexuality is genetic. Those who propose such things are often prejudiced, why do sexuality to be all the time associated with reproduction. It sexuality was only for reproduction it wouldn't be so fun. People, including homophobics and racists, bring their prejudice to science and try to explain the things they do not like with words that refer to illness. Some people enjoy having s*x with persons from the opposite s*x, others with people from the same s*x, is a thing of what makes you feel right with your life.