Richard Dawkins on the possible “gay gene”

[Grant Tarredus]

 

[aethelreddansforth]

seems pretty logical that gayness is biological, if not genetic. why do some gay men look feminine, or some lesbians look masculine? Tht's not a choice. nobody chooses their body shape or facial structure. maybe it's something of a genetic, epigenetic, or inter-uterine origin that makes a person gay.

 

[Araucaria]

This is an interesting discussion on several possibilities of how a "gay gene" might work, and the possible implications of them. I think there may be yet other possibilities out there that are not obvious out there, which may require completely novel ways of looking at human behavior.

 

[TX-Beau]

Your genetic code is the totality of you, and a predisposition is not a certainty, a genetic predisposition for a disease is not a guarantor that you'll have it, just an increased (to a greater or lesser degree) chance. If you spent your life smoking and gnawing off asbestos paint, well it might not have been the predisposition for cancer that was to blame.

It's both nature and nurture, it's much more complicated than something that has just one cause.

As to the why? "Survival of the fittest" is bullshit. In every generation of a species a number of random mutations occur. They can be detrimental; to the organism - in their context - for example a mutation for not breathing water will kill a fish. They can be benign, such as hair color, they can be beneficial, such as being able to eat anything. HOWEVER, the "usefulness" of a mutation cannot be evaluated outside the context of that organism's environment, one mutation may be useful in West Hollywood, and absolutely disastrous in Kansas City.

Some "harmful" mutations persist - like a predisposition for cancer, some "useful" ones don't. The idea that only successful mutations somehow drive evolution is bunk. In aggregate over many many generations STATISTICALUY some mutations persist at higher instances, but then so do benign or undesirable traits. Yesterday's useful may become tomorrow's killer if the cont4ext changes. For instance, a genetic predisposition for being able to breath CO2 would be very useful in the near future.

It's just basically silly to assign value judgement to evolution, it's a process, not a consciousness, it doesn't make any decisions.

 

[fredroy]

I think it is both genetic and culture. You can't help the genetic part. Culture, well, in past times one was expected to marry and have children. Since most folks lived in rural areas and doing fun stuff like planting huge gardens and farming and raising animals just to have enough to eat, having a lot of kids was a good thing. Many hands make light. And many kids make continuation of the community possible.

 

[Thad1527]

The dear late Dr. Ruth Westheimer frequently said, "We do not know the etiology of homosexuality."

 

[peeonme]

I believe that it is not the presence of a gay gene, but perhaps the absence of what it is that makes a person attracted to the opposite sex. An attraction to the same sex then becomes the default mode of sexual attraction.
Also, there are recessive genes that "pop" up from grandparents, great-grandparents (who knows how far back this goes) so we are not just a combination of "mom and dad".

 

[Norri]

I think in this case it’s more nature than nurture. As far as nature is concerned the only reason you are on this earth is to reproduce, as it is for every living thing. It’s inconceivable to me that nature would allow something as lowly as culture to interfere with its plan.

If nature had its way we’d all be hedonists and maybe we were until culture reared its ugly head.

 

[Kahaih]

. . . . As far as nature is concerned the only reason you are on this earth is to reproduce, . . . .

Is your therapist okay with that, . . . or maybe you're saving it for your final court ordered session?

 

[TX-Beau]

I think in this case it’s more nature than nurture. As far as nature is concerned the only reason you are on this earth is to reproduce, as it is for every living thing. It’s inconceivable to me that nature would allow something as lowly as culture to interfere with its plan.

If nature had its way we’d all be hedonists and maybe we were until culture reared its ugly head.

Is that why we're on this Earth though? Does "nature" have any motives or intentions whatsoever? We exist as part of a thin skin of ecosystem interacting with everything else inside, literally floating over a huge ball of molten rock and metal, orbiting a massive thermonuclear reaction that provides energy to stave off entropy. Whether we as a species survive or die off is utterly irrelevant to "nature." The ball will spin on, with or without us.

Might be that "nature," the ever-changing ecosystem itself, is unable to give one shit whether any one of us ever existed, and there never was a "why" to ponder. Perhaps it's up to us to give our own lives meaning beyond procreation.

 

[Peloso]

If it's proven that a gene is responsible, it will be politicized in the ugliest way. Such a gene will be both dreaded and coveted. Family histories will be unearthed by prospective parents, and it will be a huge shit show. It could end up altering the amount of gay and lesbian children born and I'll give you one guess as to which way that will go.

Actually it doesn't have to be proven. Just posted somewhere on Facebook.

Do we really need to know? What would it change (besides the vernacular of extremist liberal keyboard warriors)? The scientific quest for knowledge is frequently obnoxious and sometimes unnecessary.

 

[pigface]

Same sex bonding has been recored in many species of mammals and birds.

There are many inherited characteristics that are controlled by groups of genes, not single genes.

 

[Norri]

Is your therapist okay with that, . . . or maybe you're saving it for your final court ordered session?

Please educate me if nature has a reason for our existence beyond reproduction do tell what is it?

 

[LeicsDom]

seems pretty logical that gayness is biological, if not genetic. why do some gay men look feminine, or some lesbians look masculine? Tht's not a choice. nobody chooses their body shape or facial structure. maybe it's something of a genetic, epigenetic, or inter-uterine origin that makes a person gay.

My personal theory is that it is just a gene mutation, otherwise how do you explain more than one child growing up gay

 

[LeicsDom]

I think in this case it’s more nature than nurture. As far as nature is concerned the only reason you are on this earth is to reproduce, as it is for every living thing. It’s inconceivable to me that nature would allow something as lowly as culture to interfere with its plan.

So how do you explain the many many instances of same sex attraction and bonding in the natural world?

 

[Norri]

So how do you explain the many many instances of same sex attraction and bonding in the natural world?

I’m tempted to apply the second law of thermodynamics here and say all things that produce energy produce waste but that’s too cheeky so I’ll just go with nature allows for mutations which is how most species develop and improve.

 

[aethelreddansforth]

My personal theory is that it is just a gene mutation, otherwise how do you explain more than one child growing up gay

what one child?

 

[peeonme]

About 10% of people are left handed, another 10% have blue eyes and another 7.8 % are lgbt (though I think it's a bit higher than that). If anomalies such as these appear due to a "need" what would be the need to be left handed or have blue eyes?
Do these appear to fill a need or is it just a spontaneous "hick up" that appears for no rhyme or reason? Is there truly a cause and effect in evolution or could it just be the nature of evolution to spice things up by adding variants for no reason?
I would add that when it comes to lbgt, left handedness and blue eyes that I hit the trifecta, wonder what the odds of that happening are?

 

[pigface]

About 10% of people are left handed, another 10% have blue eyes and another 7.8 % are lgbt (though I think it's a bit higher than that). If anomalies such as these appear due to a "need" what would be the need to be left handed or have blue eyes?
Do these appear to fill a need or is it just a spontaneous "hick up" that appears for no rhyme or reason? Is there truly a cause and effect in evolution or could it just be the nature of evolution to spice things up by adding variants for no reason?
I would add that when it comes to lbgt, left handedness and blue eyes that I hit the trifecta, wonder what the odds of that happening are?

A very relevant factor in evolution though is that for mutations to flourish or become extinct hinges on how they promote or hinder reproductive fitness.
Blue eyes and/or sinistrality don't affect the ability to pass on genes. Although eye colour may have an effect on mate recognition patterns, leading to selection for or against.

 

[rareboy]

Totally genetic.

I was a homo in the making at the age of 2.

I can even trace the line of it in our family.